Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 276 (1.83 seconds)
Documents citing E. Palanisamy vs Palanisamy (D) By Lrs & Ors on 31 October, 2002

Govindarajalu Naidu vs )Vaduganathan (Deceased) on 18 February, 2011

13. As noticed above and also from the perusal of the evidence available on record, it is clear that the tenant failed to scrupulously follow the various steps, which are prescribed under Section 8 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of E.Palanisamy vs. Palanisamy, referred supra, has held that the procedure under Section 8 is to be followed by the tenant step by step, and an earlier step is a pre-condition for the next step and a strict compliance of the procedure is necessary and the tenant cannot straightway jump to the last step i.e. to deposit the rent in Court. In the present case, the Courts below held that the tenant is entitled to deposit the rents only upto the period, when eviction was ordered and not thereafter. In the facts and circumstances of the case is that no error in the order of Courts below in this regard.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

M/S Ishwar Chand Suresh Kumar vs Smt. Sunita Garg on 23 January, 2009

"5. Recently, in E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy, (2003) 1 SCC 123, a Division Bench of this Court observed: (SCC p. 127, para 5) "The rent legislation is normally intended for the benefit of the tenants. At the same time, it is well settled that the benefits conferred on the tenants through the relevant statutes can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance with the C.R. No. 5276 of 2007 [5] statutory provisions. Equitable consideration has no place in such matters."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - R Bindal - Full Document

The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 1978

The Court further ruled that equity can supplement the law, but it cannot supplant or override it. In this context, reliance was also placed upon Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa [AIR 1963 SC 1633], Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 5 SCC 413,] Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal [(2003) 2 SCC 577], E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy [(2003) 1 SCC 123], and India House v. Kishan N. Lalwani [(2003) 9 SCC 393].
Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Loganatha Mudaliar vs Raghunathlal .... 1St on 9 July, 2012

It is therefore crystal clear from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the tenant cannot take shelter by saying that the landlord refused to receive the rent. The tenant on seeing that the landlord refusing to receive the rent should resort to the procedure contemplated under the Rent Control Act. But, in this case the tenant had not taken such steps. No doubt, even on the filing of the RCOP, the tenant had not chosen to deposit the rent. The application under Section 8(5) of the Act was filed by the tenant, pending the RCOP filed by the landlord, but the procedure contemplated in the Act was not adhered to. There is also nothing to indicate and exemplify that there is any error in the order passed by the courts below in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 1 SCC 123, [E.Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (D) by LRs and others].
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Mr.S.Ragendran ... Revision vs Mrs.N.Ambika on 29 June, 2012

31. Similarly, the Courts below, without properly appreciating the judgment reported in 2003 10 S.C.C. 610 (supra) wherein, the judgment rendered in E.Palanisamy case (referred to supra) was distinguished and the meaning of the words 'wilful default' was explained and held that the tenant cannot be evicted on the ground of not complying with the provisions of Section 8 of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R S Ramanathan - Full Document

Ujjwal Sahrawat Through Dr Tammanna R ... vs Ms Ajay Garments on 14 August, 2019

23. Applying the principles laid down in Atmaram's case (Supra), as noted herein earlier, and the decision in E. Palanisamy (Supra) and in view of our discussions made herein earlier and considering the object of the Act and the intention of the Legislature, we are in respectful agreement with the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions. In our view, similar facts had arisen in the present case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pushpa Gupta vs Subhash Chandra And Another on 10 July, 2019

In the case of E.Palanisamy Vs. Palanisamy36, while considering similar provisions under the T.N.Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 it was held that benefits conferred by statutory provisions under a rent legislation could be enjoyed only if such provisions are strictly complied with and procedure prescribed is followed step by step. It was emphasized that the earlier step is a precondition which must be fulfilled before the next step could be taken and that equitable considerations have no place in such matters where strict compliance with procedure was necessary, and a plea that since deposit of rent had been made, a lenient view ought to be taken was held not acceptable and the eviction order passed against the tenant on the ground of default was held as not requiring any interference. The relevant observations made in the judgment are as follows :-
Allahabad High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 2 - Y K Srivastava - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next