Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 113 (4.20 seconds)
Documents citing B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd vs Birendra Kumar Bhowmick & Anr on 6 March, 1987

Projnan Chakravarti & Anr vs Sudipta Basu (Since Deceased) ... on 15 May, 2025

21. Sub-section (3) provides for consequences of non-payment of rent i.e. striking off the defence against the delivery of the possession and to proceed with the hearing of the suit. Such provision is materially different from sub-sections (2-A) and (2-B) which was being examined by this Court in B.P. Khemka [B.P. Khemka (P) Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick, (1987) 2 SCC 407] . Sub-sections (2-A) and (2-B) of Section 17 of the 1956 Act confer unfettered power on the court to extend the period of deposit of rent, which is circumscribed by the proviso to Section 7(2) and sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of sub-section (2) are mandatory and required to be scrupulously followed by the tenant, if the tenant has to avoid the eviction on account of non-payment of arrears of rent under Section 6 of the Act. There is an outer limit for extension of time to deposit of arrears of rent in terms of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mithun @ Akhtar Ali vs Sk. Aziz Haque & Ors on 24 November, 2017

18. This Special Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. B.P. Khemka Private Limited Vs. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick (supra) though decided it as a unnecessary pursue about applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to extend the time for deposit, under Section 17(1) & (2) of the Old Act as was held by Single Bench of this court in the case of M/s. Darka Das Vs. Raghu Prasad reported in 1987(1) CLJ 479, however, the Division Bench of this Court in the referential case of Subrata Mukherjee Vs. Bisakha Das (supra) answered in paragraphs 46 and 47 which are set out:-
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 26 - Cited by 5 - M D Sheko - Full Document

Sri Sagar Sharma vs Smt. Malati Sharma on 14 November, 2025

16. We proceed to discuss the ratio in Amit Kumar Chamariya (supra). On institution of a suit by the landlord for eviction on any of the grounds referred to in Section 6 of the said Act, the tenant, subject to the provisions of sub- section (2) of the Section 7, was liable to pay to the landlord or deposit with the civil judge all arrears of rent calculated at the rate at which it was last paid and upto the end of the month previous to that in which the payment was made, together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. Such payment or deposit was to be made within one month from the service of summons on the tenant or when the tenant appeared in the suit without summons being served, within one month from his appearance. Thereafter, the tenant was enjoined by law, to continue to pay to the landlord or deposit with the civil judge a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate, month by month within 15th of each succeeding month. In case of any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the tenant was liable to deposit with the civil judge, within the time specified in the sub-section, the amount admitted by him to be due from him together with an application for determination of the rent payable. No such deposit could be accepted unless it was accompanied by an application for determination of the rent payable. On receipt of the application, the civil judge, 13 2025:CHC-AS:2091 having regard to the rate at which the rent was last paid and the period for which default may have been made by the tenant, determine the dispute and pass an order within a period not exceeding one year, specifying the amount, if any, due from the tenant and thereupon the tenant was liable to pay to the landlord within one month from the date of such order, the amount so specified in the order along with the monthly rent at the rate so determined."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Sarkar - Full Document

Heera Lal vs Mandir Shri Thakurji Sangria And Anr. on 14 March, 2005

In nutshell, it could be concluded that the stream of a line of view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be applied and delay could be condoned in default of the compliance of Section 13(4) of the Act even beyond the statutory period fixed by the said provision itself which was built on the basis of B.P. Khemka (P) Ltd.,'s case (supra), and Gopal Dass's case (supra), has travelled a full circle culminating into the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nasiruddin's case (supra).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 25 - Cited by 7 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Sri Sagar Sharma vs Smt. Malati Sharma on 14 November, 2025

16. We proceed to discuss the ratio in Amit Kumar Chamariya (supra). On institution of a suit by the landlord for eviction on any of the grounds referred to in Section 6 of the said Act, the tenant, subject to the provisions of sub- section (2) of the Section 7, was liable to pay to the landlord or deposit with the civil judge all arrears of rent calculated at the rate at which it was last paid and upto the end of the month previous to that in which the payment was made, together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. Such payment or deposit was to be made within one month from the service of summons on the tenant or when the tenant appeared in the suit without summons being served, within one month from his appearance. Thereafter, the tenant was enjoined by law, to continue to pay to the landlord or deposit with the civil judge a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate, month by month within 15th of each succeeding month. In case of any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the tenant was liable to deposit with the civil judge, within the time specified in the sub-section, the amount admitted by him to be due from him together with an application for determination of the rent payable. No such deposit could be accepted unless it was accompanied by an application for determination of the rent payable. On receipt of the application, the civil judge, 13 2025:CHC-AS:2091 having regard to the rate at which the rent was last paid and the period for which default may have been made by the tenant, determine the dispute and pass an order within a period not exceeding one year, specifying the amount, if any, due from the tenant and thereupon the tenant was liable to pay to the landlord within one month from the date of such order, the amount so specified in the order along with the monthly rent at the rate so determined."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Sarkar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next