Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)

Subrati vs Bhagwati Prasad on 23 October, 1989

9. Shri P. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Ram Chandra v. Kanak Ram (WLN 1980,128), in which it was held by this court that determination of amount of rent provisionally is mandatory but it is directory in respect of period within which the same can be determined. It was further held that provisional rent can be determined even before expiry of three months after the filing of written statement or even after the issues are framed. It was observed that to hold that the period prescribed in Sub-section (3) of Section 13 for the provisional determination of the amount by the Court is mandatory, would result in penalising the tenant for something for which he is not at all responsible. It was, therefore, held that the period prescribed in Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, 1950, cannot be regarded as mandatory and that it is only directory.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramji Lal vs Shyama And Anr. on 16 September, 1983

4. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the landlord that the whole approach of the Additional District Judge was erroneous and unsustainable in law. Admittedly, the tenants had not deposited the monthly rent by the 15th day of the succeeding month. Their defence against eviction was, therefore, liable to be struck out. He concession could be granted to the tenants. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court viz Ram Chandra v. Kanak Ram 1980 W.L.N. 125 and Suraj Narain v. Laxmi Devi 1981 W.L.N. 386. In reply, straneous efforts were made to support the impugned order of the lower appellate court. I have taken the respective contentions into consideration.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1