Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Mangat Rai & Anr vs Kidar Nath & Ors on 21 August, 1980

Shri Deepak Goel vs M/S. Prem Chand Amrit Lal on 2 May, 2009

The facts of the other case i.e. Mangat Rai And Another Vs. Kidar Nath And Others (supra) are also entirely different. In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court was examining the proviso of Section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1941 which provides a relief to the tenant in an eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent, if the tenant on the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service pays / tenders the arrears of rent and interest @ 6% per annum on such arrears together with the cost of Contd..
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Monoj Lal Seal vs Octavious Tea And Industries Ltd. on 21 April, 2015

In this connection learned counsel would rely upon the decisions passed in the case of Mangat Rai & Anr. vs. Kidar Nath & Ors., (1981) 1 SCR 476, Pushpa Devi and Others vs. Milkhi Ram (Dead) By His Lrs., (1990) 2 SCC 134, and Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram and Others, (1974) 1 SCC 242. Lastly, Dr. Singhvi submitted that earlier when the matter came to this Court by way of a special leave petition, this Court dismissed it on 29.7.2013 with the observation that the trial court shall consider the bonafide of the tenancy in depositing the rent.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Sri Pranab Bhowmik vs Sri. Narayan Debnath on 31 March, 2022

"2. Rent control legilsations have been acknowledged to be pieces of social legislation which seek to strike a just balance between the rights of the landlord and the requirements of the tenants. Such legislations prevent the landlords from taking the extreme step of evicting the tenants merely upon technicalities or carved grounds. This Court in Mangat Ram vs. Kedar Nath [1980(4) SCC 276] held that where the Rent Acts afford a real and sanctified protection to the tenant, the same should not be nullified by giving a hyper-technical or liberal construction to the Page 15 of 16 language of the statute which instead of advancing the object of the Act may result in its frustration. The Rent Acts have primarily been enacted to give protection to the tenants.
Tripura High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - T A Goud - Full Document

M/S Adroit Holding Pvt. Ltd vs . on 24 May, 2023

" Rent Control legislations have been acknowledged to be pieces of social legislation which seek to strike a just balance between the rights of the landlord and the requirements of the tenants. Such legislations prevent the landlords from taking the extreme step of evicting the tenants merely upon technicalities or carved grounds. This court in Mangat Rai v. Kidar Nath (1980) 4 SCC 276: (AIR 1980 SC 1709) held that where the Rent Acts afford a real and sanctified protection of the tenant the same should not be nullified by giving a hypertechnical or liberal construction to the language of the statue which instead of advancing the object of the Act may result in its frustration.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sumitra Devi (Smt.) vs Ratan Lal Through Lrs. on 2 June, 2006

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court after distinguishing the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Mangal Rai and Anr. v. Kidar Nath and Ors. and after considering the case of Shri Vidhya Prachar Trust v. Pandit Basant Ram , held that even when application Under Section 31 of the Punjab Indebtedness Act, 1934 was submitted in the same court, which was also functioning as Rent Controller, still the amount of rent deposited Under Section 31 of the Punjab Indebtedness Act, 1934 cannot be considered valid payment of rent to the landlord under the Rent Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P C Tatia - Full Document

Smt. Hardev Kaur And Ors. vs Ghazal Restaurant And Ors. on 18 August, 1992

The ratio of the judgment in Makhan Lal's case (supra) runs counter to the view expressed by the apex Court in Mangal Rai's case (supra) Even otherwise, the learned Judge did not appropriate Section 6 of the Act would be applicable only if fair rent had been fixed under Section 4 of the Act. If fair rent had not been fixed, there would be no bar in law for the parties by agreement to provide for revision of rent. Accordingly, this judgment is also overruled.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Sham Surat Singh And Ors. on 26 August, 1981

(12) This precise question has been the subject mater of a full bench of the Punjab High Court in Mangat Rai v. Kidar Nath 1961 (63) Plr, 617(2) (Per Mehar Singh, Grover and Mahajan JJ). Two questions were referred to the full bench. We are directly concerned with one of them. That was the question: "Whether it is open to the legal representatives of a debtor to invoke the help of Section 30 of Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act in a suit for possession by redemption?" The principal argument before the full bench in that case was that the legal represen'ative of a deceased debtor is not a "debtor" within the meaning of the term as defined in Section 7(2) and therefore he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 30 of the Act, namely, the rule of damdupat. This argument was rejected by the court. It was held that the legal representative of a debtor will be entitled to the benefit of the statutory protection con- tained in Section 30 of the Act. I will quote two passages from the judgment of the full bench which sum up their views. Speaking for the court Mehar Singh J said : "IN sub-section (2) of Section 7 of Punjab Act No. 7 of 1934, 'debtor' is defined to mean a person who owes a debt and has one of the three other qualifications mentioned therein. The definition of "debtor" in this provision is a narrower definition on account of one of the three additional qualifications, than ^he meaning of flies word as a person who owes a debt. This narrower. definition is given in this provision for the purposes cf Part Iv of the Act dealing with proceedings before Debt Conciliation Boards and it is confined only to this Part. It has been contended on behalf of the defendants that the meaning of the word 'debt' in section 7(1) of this Act should be confined only to a 'debtor' as defined in sub-section (2) of that section, but for that there is no justification as the word 'debtor' is specially defined in sub-section (2) with limited meaning for the purposes of Part Iv of this Act, while the meaning of the word 'debt' in sub-section (1) being inclusive is not narrowed by the definition. It is true that some defined liabilities' are excluded from that definition but that does not make the meaning of the word 'debt' in sub-section (1) as merely confined to a debt owed by a 'debtor' as defined in sub-section (2). A 'debtor' as defined in that sub-section of course is a person who owes a debt, but a 'debt' as defined in sub-section (1) may be owed by a 'debtor' as defined in sub-section (2) and may also be owed by a debtor falling outside the narrower definition of the word 'debtor' as given in sub-section (2)." (p. 620).
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Budh Prakash Sethi vs Sumitra Devi on 29 April, 1981

(11) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the rent is not a debt and as such the appellant cannot take advantage of Section 31 of the said Act. I do not agree. Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 has been worded in the widest possible term. It has used the words, 'any person who owes money'. The word 'debtor' as defined in the said Act has not been used. Further the word ''money' has been used and not the word 'debt'. In other words any person who owes money to his creditor is entitled to make payment in full or in part. As soon as the deposit is made, the court is to give notice to the creditor and pay the same to him, Thus, it is clear that if atenant deposits arrears of rent under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtadness Act in the civil court he is deemed to have paid the rent so deposited to his landlord . Reference in this connection may be made to Mangat Rai and another vs. Kidar Nath and another, 1961 (1) R. C. J. 326(S.C.) The Supreme Court in that case treated the deposit under Section 31 of the said Act in the civil court as deposit under the rent Act to the credit of the landlord. It is also observed therein that a tenant fully answers the description of the opening words of Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 which are to the effect 'any person who owes money'. In tact if a tenant deposits rent even before the issue of a notice of demand it is a solid proof of his bona fides in the matter and the legal position would be that if the rent is deposited before the notice of demand it would be deemed to have been said to the landlord.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next