Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.48 seconds)Maragathammal vs Kamalammal on 11 September, 2006
13. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maragathammal vs. Kamalammal, 2006 (5) CTC 698, a some what identical issue came up for consideration. In the said case, the landlord had filed an application under Section 11 of the Act and the Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit the entire admitted arrears into Court on or before a particular date failing compliance of which, the tenant's defence would be struck off. In the said case, the date fixed by the Rent Controller was 22.11.1995. The tenant filed a lodgment schedule on 21.11.1995, stating that he desires to deposit the amount. The said lodgment schedule was considered and challan was issued only on 29.11.1995. The learned Rent Controller therein held that the tenant failed to comply with the order and ordered that the defence should be struck off. Thereupon, an appeal was filed before the Appellant Authority and pending appeal, there was an interim order passed to deposit the rent and this was complied with and the appeals were finally disposed by the learned Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by such order, revision petitions were filed before this Court. This Court in its order took note of the conduct of the tenant pending appeal and held that the tenant has displayed her bonafide by payment of rent during the pendency of the appeal proceedings and should be allowed to contest the eviction petition on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Court and in doing so held as follows :-
Section 8 in The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
C. Natarajan vs S. Anandammal on 28 April, 1988
vs. V.P.Venuguduswami and other, (1999) 6 SCC 396, C.Natarajan vs. S.Anandammal, 1989 1 LW 29 and M/s.Guru Associates and another vs. B.A.Balasubramaniam, 2000-3-L.W.634
1