Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.53 seconds)

Shri Shib Nath Saha vs Smt. Kanchana Mukhopadhyay on 6 October, 2023

27. Now so far as reliance being placed upon the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Popat and Kotecha Property (supra) is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that in the said decision, para 45 of the decision in the case of Calcutta Gujarati Education Society (supra) has been considered and not para 46, reproduced hereinabove. Even on facts, the said decision is not applicable. In the said decision, under the agreement the parties agreed that the rent would include all municipal taxes payable and that as and when such taxes are enhanced rent should be proportionately raised. In the present case, under the tenancy agreement, the rent payable would be Rs. 10,000/- per month which does not include the municipal taxes payable.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Allied Motors Ltd. & Others on 27 August, 2018

10. So far as the judgments which are relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in the cases of Raju Kakara Shetty (supra) and M/s Popat & Kotecha (supra) are concerned, it is seen that these judgments were in the proceedings under the Rent Acts of the relevant States being the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1947, and accordingly it was held in the said judgments in the proceedings under the Rent Acts that the amounts which are recoverable towards property tax or education cess if not paid by a tenant then tenant would be liable to eviction in terms of the proceedings initiated under the respective Rent Acts. I am not called upon to decide in the present case as to whether non-payment of property tax by a tenant will or will not entitle a landlord to file RFA 700/2018 Page 11 of 12 proceedings under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as the proceedings before the Court arise from a civil suit which is filed by the appellant/plaintiff in a civil court alleging that the suit premises do not have protection of Delhi Rent Control Act. In case any proceeding are filed by the appellant/plaintiff under the Delhi Rent Control Act by alleging that the amount payable as property tax will be part of the rent for the purpose of proceedings under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and on non-payment of such amount of property tax, once the same is legally payable by the tenant, whether the tenant is liable to eviction in proceedings under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act will be decided in those proceedings, and which issue is left open.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Subarna Banik Samaj Of Calcutta Trust vs M/S. Navina Printing Works Pvt. Ltd on 16 November, 2021

Taking cue from the decision in M/s. Popat & Kotecha Property & Ors. v. Ashim Kumar Dey reported in 2018(4) ICC 173(S.C) I hold that defendant/opposite party as a tenant is under legal obligation to pay municipal taxes and maintenance charges at the rate of ten per cent over and above the obligation to pay agreed rent by virtue of the provision of Section 5 (7) and (8) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

(Dismissed) vs M/S Mahima Consultants Private Limited on 26 April, 2016

In my view the said judgment do not assist the petitioners having regard to the fact that although the cheque was sent to the plaintiff but he did not encash the cheque and there is a categorical statement in the paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition to that effect. It is also not in dispute that the rent for October was sent through money order and the same was returned with the endorsement 'refused' and similar was the fate for rent for the month of November 2012.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Sen - Full Document
1