Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.16 seconds)
Jaitoon And Ors. vs Roop Chand on 14 November, 2006 cites

Shyamlal vs Upbhokta Sahakari Samiti And Anr. on 11 August, 1980

On the other hand, as the judgments of this Court are, that the ground of default ceases to exist when the amount of rent and interest is deposited by the tenant, as provided under Sub-section (4), and that no trial on the ground of default thereafter is contemplated. Whether the tenant has committed default or not need not be gone into in case the tenant conducts himself in the manner, as provided in the first part of Sub-section (4) by depositing the amount of rent and interest within the time allowed by the Court. With the obvious result that where the suit for eviction is based solely on the ground of default in payment of rent, and therein the tenant has deposited the amount as required by Sub-section (4), and does not join any other controversy on facts, the Court has no option but to proceed to dismiss the suit, obviously under Sub-section 13(7), as it then existed, except however awarding cost to the plaintiff. I may refer to the judgment of this Court in Shyamlal v. Upbhokta Sahakari Samiti reported in 1982 WLN 467. Obviously if that course of action is required to be adopted, and is adopted, it would tantamount to the tenant having obtained the benefit, within the meaning of provisions to Section 13(7) as it then existed, and Section 13(6) as it now existed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Batliboi & Co. Ltd. vs Govind Narayan And Ors. on 21 July, 1981

15. This is one aspect of the matter. The other equally important aspect of the matter is, that it is established law right upto the Division Bench of this Court, as laid down in Batlibai & Co. Ltd. v. Govind Narayan reported in 1981 RLW 411, so also Shobh Raj v. Bhanwar Lal reported in 1974 RLW 521, that for the purpose of considering the question, as to whether, on the face of provisions of Sub-section (6), the tenant is entitled to benefit or not, all that is required to be seen is, as to whether the earlier suit, based on default, had been dismissed, on account of defendant making payment, or not, and it is not required to be established, whether in the previous suit, or in the present suit, that the defendant was a defaulter within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a), in the previous suit. In that view of the matter, it is not required to be gone into, as to whether in the previous suit, the appellant was a defaulter or not.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document
1