Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Maragathammal vs Kamalammal on 11 September, 2006

Petitioner vs The Madras Pinjrapole on 26 June, 2025

25.8 In the case of Maragathammal v. Kamalammal (2006) 8 SCC 152 Default in payment of rent, when deliberate and without any valid explanation, amounts to wilful default and is a valid ground for eviction under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 25.9 In case of Mariyam Begum v. Basheerunnisa Begum, (2001) 8 SCC 230, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a tenant’s failure to deposit the rent during the pendency of proceedings, despite being directed to do so as a pre-condition to contest, amounts to wilful default, and such a tenant is liable to be evicted.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

G.Suresh Kumar vs O.L.Muthu on 11 February, 2011

13. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maragathammal vs. Kamalammal, 2006 (5) CTC 698, a some what identical issue came up for consideration. In the said case, the landlord had filed an application under Section 11 of the Act and the Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit the entire admitted arrears into Court on or before a particular date failing compliance of which, the tenant's defence would be struck off. In the said case, the date fixed by the Rent Controller was 22.11.1995. The tenant filed a lodgment schedule on 21.11.1995, stating that he desires to deposit the amount. The said lodgment schedule was considered and challan was issued only on 29.11.1995. The learned Rent Controller therein held that the tenant failed to comply with the order and ordered that the defence should be struck off. Thereupon, an appeal was filed before the Appellant Authority and pending appeal, there was an interim order passed to deposit the rent and this was complied with and the appeals were finally disposed by the learned Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by such order, revision petitions were filed before this Court. This Court in its order took note of the conduct of the tenant pending appeal and held that the tenant has displayed her bonafide by payment of rent during the pendency of the appeal proceedings and should be allowed to contest the eviction petition on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Court and in doing so held as follows :-
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

N.Ramalingam vs Selvam on 5 October, 2012

27. Moreover, the question whether the Rent Controller can extend the time for depositing the arrears of rent granted by the Appellate Authority or revision Court has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maragathammal Vs. Kamalammal reported in 2007-2-L.W.503. In the said caes an order under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was passed by the Rent Controller on 19.11.2005 directing the respondent herein/tenant to deposit the entire admitted arrears of rent in Court on or before 22.11.1995, failing compliance of which the tenant's defence would be struck off. The tenant therein stated to have filed a lodgment schedule on 21.11.1995 stating that he wanted to deposit the rent from the month of July 1992 onwards upto to October 1995 (covering 41 months). Lodgment schedule came to be considered and a challan was issued on 29.11.1995 for depositing the amount. The Rent Controller passed an order on 01.12.1995 holding that the tenant failed to deposit the admitted arrears in spite of ample opportunities, struck off the defence and passed an order of eviction in the R.C.O.P on 22.03.1996. As against the said order passed in 11(4) petition and the order of eviction passed in R.C.O.P, appeals were filed by the tenant in R.C.A.No.63 of 1997 and 66 of 1998. As the appeal against the eviction order was beyond the period of limitation, an interlocutory application to condone the said delay was filed. In the said application to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the Appellate Authority directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent from June 1992 to July 1997 on or before 16.07.1997. Such an order came to be passed on 08.07.1997. Accordingly, the amount was also deposited on 14.07.1997. Thereafter, the appeals came to be numbered and they were disposed of by a common order dated 04.07.2000 holding that the tenant was not showing due diligence to discharge her liability in payment of rent and the arrears of rent was not deposited within time. In a revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, the Supreme Court reversed the said judgment of the Appellate Authority, set aside the order of eviction passed under Section 11(4) of the Act, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. In the said case, it was pointed out that the tenant waited till the eve of the last day for the deposit of the amount and on a day before the last day of the time granted by the Court for deposit, filed a lodgment schedule expressing her intention to deposit the rent for the month of June 1992 onwards upto October 1995. As she had waited till the eve of the last day for filing the lodgment schedule, the Supreme Court held that there was no bonafide on the part of the tenant therein; that therefore, the orders striking off the defence and directing eviction of the tenant for non-compliance with the conditional order was justifiable and that the interference by the High Court in the said case was unwarranted. Accordingly, the Supreme Court in the said case set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. However, the Supreme Court granted two months time to the tenant to vacate the premises.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P R Shivakumar - Full Document

N.Ramalingam vs Shanmugam on 5 October, 2012

27. Moreover, the question whether the Rent Controller can extend the time for depositing the arrears of rent granted by the Appellate Authority or revision Court has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maragathammal Vs. Kamalammal reported in 2007-2-L.W.503. In the said caes an order under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was passed by the Rent Controller on 19.11.2005 directing the respondent herein/tenant to deposit the entire admitted arrears of rent in Court on or before 22.11.1995, failing compliance of which the tenant's defence would be struck off. The tenant therein stated to have filed a lodgment schedule on 21.11.1995 stating that he wanted to deposit the rent from the month of July 1992 onwards upto to October 1995 (covering 41 months). Lodgment schedule came to be considered and a challan was issued on 29.11.1995 for depositing the amount. The Rent Controller passed an order on 01.12.1995 holding that the tenant failed to deposit the admitted arrears in spite of ample opportunities, struck off the defence and passed an order of eviction in the R.C.O.P on 22.03.1996. As against the said order passed in 11(4) petition and the order of eviction passed in R.C.O.P, appeals were filed by the tenant in R.C.A.No.63 of 1997 and 66 of 1998. As the appeal against the eviction order was beyond the period of limitation, an interlocutory application to condone the said delay was filed. In the said application to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the Appellate Authority directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent from June 1992 to July 1997 on or before 16.07.1997. Such an order came to be passed on 08.07.1997. Accordingly, the amount was also deposited on 14.07.1997. Thereafter, the appeals came to be numbered and they were disposed of by a common order dated 04.07.2000 holding that the tenant was not showing due diligence to discharge her liability in payment of rent and the arrears of rent was not deposited within time. In a revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, the Supreme Court reversed the said judgment of the Appellate Authority, set aside the order of eviction passed under Section 11(4) of the Act, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. In the said case, it was pointed out that the tenant waited till the eve of the last day for the deposit of the amount and on a day before the last day of the time granted by the Court for deposit, filed a lodgment schedule expressing her intention to deposit the rent for the month of June 1992 onwards upto October 1995. As she had waited till the eve of the last day for filing the lodgment schedule, the Supreme Court held that there was no bonafide on the part of the tenant therein; that therefore, the orders striking off the defence and directing eviction of the tenant for non-compliance with the conditional order was justifiable and that the interference by the High Court in the said case was unwarranted. Accordingly, the Supreme Court in the said case set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. However, the Supreme Court granted two months time to the tenant to vacate the premises.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P R Shivakumar - Full Document

Punita Sahni vs Kailash Sethi on 10 September, 2009

Eventually, the application was dismissed for non- prosecution on 31.08.2007. The tribunal, therefore, concluded that the deposit made under Section 27 was not legally made. The tribunal held that from the conduct of the petitioner it was evident that the delay in depositing the rent for the aforesaid period was contumacious and willful. The tribunal relied upon the following extract from C.M.(M) No.641/2009 Page 6 of 19 Maragathammal v. Kamalammal (2006) 8 SCC 152:
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 3 - V Sanghi - Full Document
1   2 Next