Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (3.91 seconds)
Documents citing Shah Dhansukhlal Chhaganlal vs Dalichand Virchand Shroff And Others on 1 March, 1968

Bachiben Tulsidas vs Jayantilal Chunilal on 18 March, 2005

Their Lordships found that the tenant did not avail of the remedy under Section 11 and did not dispute the standard rent in reply to the notice, they relied upon the decision reported in the case of SHAH DHANSUKHLAL CHHAGANLAL v DALICHAND VIRCHAND SHROFF (supra). It was further held that they have no hesitation in holding that since the appellant had not raised as regards standard rent nor availed of remedy under Section 11(3), it is not permissible for him to raise plea for the first time in the written statement.
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Laxmikant Amritlal Upadhyay vs Drumangauri Jagdishchandra on 30 July, 1973

In my opinion those observations should be read in light of the facts decided by the Supreme Court in Dhansukhlal Chhaganhl v. Dalichand Virchand Shroff. These facts show that the tenant was regularly in arrears even before the suit was instituted and had not cared to make deposits regularly even during the pendency of the suit. It was only when the suit was about to be disposed of that he made some payment which practically covered the rent in arrears. It was with reference to these facts that the Supreme Court observed that if such a tenant was really ready and willing to pay the rent in arrears, it was expected of him to move the court under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 for fixation of standard rent. This he had not done. Moreover be had also not cared to make the regular deposits of the rent in arrears during the pendency of the major portion of the suit.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gaznafrali Fatehali Hakim vs Ratilal Maganlal Panchal on 11 February, 1998

The Apex Court on thorough analysis of the Abbasbhai 's case (supra) and another decision of the Apex Court in Dhansukhlal Chhaganlal v. Dalichand Virchand Shroff , held that tenant can only be considered to be ready and willing to pay if before the expiry t of the period of one month after notice referred in Sub-section (2) makes an application to the Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 and thereafter pays or tenders the amount of rent or permitted increase specified by the Court. The Court held thus: "The tenant can claim protection from the operation of Section 12(3)(a) of the Act only if the tenant makes an application within one month of the notice terminating the tenancy by raising a dispute as to the standard rent."
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - N N Mathur - Full Document

Mohanlal Gokulchandji vs Khimraj Bhagaji on 7 November, 1977

As I have already mentioned, neither in Abbasbhai's case nor in Dhansukhlal's case is there any prohibition against the Court from allowing the tenant from making payments on dates other than the first day of hearing. If the payments are made even after the dates fixed for the payment and the Court accepts the same without treating them as defaults, I do not see how there is no compliance with the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) because ultimately all the payments are made into the Court and are accepted by the orders of the Court. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Joint Judge was in error in holding that the petitioner was not ready and willing to pay the rent. This is especially so when the learned trial Judge has specifically mentioned in his judgment that he is treating the tenant as a person ready and willing to pay the rent after noticing that the tenant had from time to time deposited the entire amount due before the judgment was delivered.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next