Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing H.M. Doyal Co. vs Ram Nath Chitkara And Ors. on 25 February, 1985

Kvr Chandra & Sons Huf vs . Jaico Book Distributors on 28 July, 2014

Logical reference in the same context can also be laid to the ratio in 'H. M. Doyal Company Vs. Ram Nath Chitkara, 28 (1985) DLT 212'. The legal import of the letter was fully clarified in notice dated 17.11.2008 sent through courier and registered post exactly at the same address at which termination notice dated 11.06.2009 was posted. The natural presumption of delivery thereof to the addressee is raised under Section 27 of The General Clauses Act in view of absolutely vague and evasive denial of receipt thereof by the defendant. It is interesting to note that the defendant has purportedly even without receiving said notice, could comment upon its validity. The least impact of letter dated 25.07.2005 was to prompt the tenant to enhance the rent as is legally permissible if not to the extent of demand. The plaintiff was entitled to further enhance the last applicable rent by 10% after a period of three years which right was exercised through notice dated 17.11.2008. The rent of Rs. 3,000/­ for each tenancy stood enhanced to Rs. 3,300/­ per month on the basis of demand letter dated 25.07.2005 w.e.f. 01.09.2005 or at least from 01.11.2005 on the basis of letter dated 12.09.2005. On subsequent enhancement w.e.f. 01.01.2009 vide notice dated 17.11.2008, the rents went beyond Rs. 3,500/­ per month i.e. became Rs. 3,630/­ for each floor. The semblance of defence of the defendant thus is found not to hold water.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Ghanshyam Singh vs Sh. Dhan Prakash Saini on 29 November, 2013

26. The respondent, however, attacked the aforesaid notice on the ground that it was no notice in the eyes of law. I fail to see as to how the aforesaid notice is not a notice in the eyes of law. The law does not prescribe any particular format for the notice for demand of arrears of rent. The law does not anywhere mandate that a person desirous of getting such a notice issued must get the same done through a legal practitioner on his behalf. There is nothing in the statute that a notice issued strictly by a legal practitioner only will have legal sanctity. A person can very well pen down and send such a notice under his own signatures. That apart, the fact that the notice was in vernacular Hindi would not mean that it is no notice in the eyes of law. Judgments reported as Smt. Raj Rani (supra) and M/s H M Doyal & Sons & Ors. (supra) clearly lay down that it is not necessary for the landlord to state the total amount of legally recoverable arrears of rent due from the tenant in his notice.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rct Appeal No. 10/2012 vs M/S Upper India Rubber Works on 24 August, 2012

24- Further, although the respondent was sending various bankers' cheques from time to time @ Rs.400/- per month to the petitioner, but it is not his case that the same were got encashed by the petitioner, meaning thereby that when the legal notice of demand was sent, he was in arrears of rent. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have paid/ tendered the rent at least @ Rs.400/- per month to the petitioner. It is not the case of respondent that after the service of legal notice of demand, the arrears were either tendered to the petitioner or he refused to receive the same. Learned Counsel for the (RCT Appeal No.10/2012 & 11/2012) (Page 17 of 19) Appellant, relied upon H.M. Doyal & Co. v. Ram Nath 1985, RLR 414 for contending that after service of notice, it is the duty of tenant to pay the arrears of rent which he thinks, is due.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Ramrati vs Shri Bijender Gupta on 7 July, 2007

14. The counsel for the respondent has accordingly argued that the evidence of PW1 is not admissible in evidence, as he is only a power of attorney and in view of the said judgment, he cannot depose on behalf of the principal about the facts which are in personal knowledge of the principal. I have perused the said judgment. The proposition of law laid down in the said judgment is not in dispute. However, the said judgment is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as PW1 is none other than the son of the petitioner, and it is even otherwise the 9 case of the respondent as pleaded in the written statement that the sons of the petitioner including PW1 had been collecting the rent from the respondent. Accordingly, it cannot be said that PW1 is not conversant with the facts of the present case in afore circumstances. Accordingly, this contention of the counsel for the respondent is without any substance.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Vinod Kumar Joshi vs Sh. Sri Krishan on 4 December, 2007

In case H.M. Dayal and Co. vs. Ram Nath, AIR 1986 101, Hon'ble High Court hold that the only duty cast upon the landlord is to send the notice demanding arrears of rent. Act does not require that the notice of demand shall state the amount due from the tenant. A notice of demand may not mention the amount at all. It may simply ask the tenant to pay the arrears, which he has not paid. As soon as a notice of demand is served, it is the duty of the tenant to pay such amount as he thinks is due from him and if ultimately it is found that the amount paid by the tenant was the correct amount, the landlord's petition for eviction will be dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next