Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.35 seconds)
Devinder Singh And Ors. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 November, 1995 cites

Daya Singh vs Bhagwan Singh And Sons And Ors. on 29 April, 1976

(12) Learned Counsel for the respondent also contended that the notice Ex. Aw 1 /3 became ineffective or non cst in view of the rent for subsequent period paid by the respondent to the landlords. In this behalf the learned Counsel relied on contents of para 4 of the reply filed by the respondent in the present proceedings. The respondent had stated in the said para about sending of three cheques to the petitioners towards arrears of rent. These cheques were allegedly sent much beyond the period covered under notice served upon the respondent by the landlords as referred to above. Secondly it is clear from the pleadings of the respondent itself that the petitioners did not receive any payment under the cheques referred to by the respondent and, therefore, in fact there was no payment of rent. Learned Counsel for the petitioners stated at the Bar that the respondent never paid any rent after the service of notice. In fact it has been pointed out that in the eviction petition the tenant had been proceeded ex parte at a very early stage. The respondent tenant had also failed to comply with the order under section 15(1) of the Act passed by the Addl.Controller on 20th March, 1991. Therefore, there is no basis for the contention raised on behalf of the respondent regarding payment of rent for subsequent period. The same is factually incorrect as no rent has been paid for the period subsequent to service of the notice under reference by the respondent to the landlords.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1