Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 78 (1.71 seconds)
Documents citing Modern Hotel, Gudur Represented Bym.N. ... vs K. Radhakrishnaiah & Ors on 26 April, 1989

Nazimuddhin Ahmed Represented By His ... vs K. Narasimha Rao on 19 February, 1993

This decision viz., Nand Lal Agarwal v. Ganesh Prasad Sah , of the Supreme Court is earlier to the abovesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Modem Hotel, Gudur v. K. Radhakrishnaiah . Of course the earlier decision has not been referred to in the later decision but even then the later decision, besides being later in point of time, in my view, considering what I have stated above interpreting Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, lays down the correct position of law.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

P.S. Venkatarajan vs T.A. Govindarajan on 9 March, 1990

On the contrary, the decision of the Supreme Court in Nandlal Agarwal v. Ganesh Prasad Sha is in accordance with Section 7(2) of the Act and also the earlier decisions of this Court, already referred to. Under these circumstances, the decision in Modern Hotel Gudur v. K. Radhakrishnaiah would not, in my view, be of any assistance to the petitioner. Though it may be that the respondent had an advance paid by the petitioner in his hands, in the absence of the exercise of an option by the petitioner seeking an adjustment of that amount towards the rent due for the period between May, 1984 and March, 1985, there cannot be an automatic adjustment of the advance amount towards the rent arrears as to justify the conclusion that the tenant had not committed wilful default in the payment of rent for the period in question. Thus, on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as several decisions referred to by counsel on both sides, the Appellate Authority was quite right in maintaining the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

M.B.K. Enterprises And Ors vs Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd. And Ors on 12 November, 2024

Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act. In that sense, I do not see any difficulty in permissibility of eviction of contractual fixed term tenant under provisions of Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act during subsistence of tenure of lease in the present case. Unlike Modern Hotel, Gudur (supra), there is a forfeiture clause in the Lease Deed, which recognises a right of the lessor to forfeit the Lease in the event it is found that the subletting or additions or alterations are contrary to the covenants of lease.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinod Mahabiprasad Gupta vs Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd. And Ors on 12 November, 2024

Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act. In that sense, I do not see any difficulty in permissibility of eviction of contractual fixed term tenant under provisions of Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act during subsistence of tenure of lease in the present case. Unlike Modern Hotel, Gudur (supra), there is a forfeiture clause in the Lease Deed, which recognises a right of the lessor to forfeit the Lease in the event it is found that the subletting or additions or alterations are contrary to the covenants of lease.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinod Mahabiprasad Gupta vs Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd. And Ors on 12 November, 2024

Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act. In that sense, I do not see any difficulty in permissibility of eviction of contractual fixed term tenant under provisions of Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act during subsistence of tenure of lease in the present case. Unlike Modern Hotel, Gudur (supra), there is a forfeiture clause in the Lease Deed, which recognises a right of the lessor to forfeit the Lease in the event it is found that the subletting or additions or alterations are contrary to the covenants of lease.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Taruna Gangwal (Smt.) vs Radhey Shyam Meratwal on 27 May, 2003

15. The of Modern Hotel, Gudur, represented by M.N. Narayanan v. K. Radhkrishnaiah and Ors. (supra) is also of little avail to the appellant because it deals with the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Building Lease & Eviction Control Act 1960, the provisions of which Act are substantially different from the provisions of our Act. The provisions of our Act are para-materia with the provisions of the Bihar Building Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act 1947 and Tamil Nadu Building (lease & Rent Control) Act, because as in the aforesaid Acts no consequence is provided in our Act with regard to taking of advance rent in violation of the provisions of the Act, whereas consequences of this are given in the aforesaid Acts.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next