Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.33 seconds)Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 19A in Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 [Entire Act]
Bihar Debt Relief Act, 1976
Section 31 in Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 [Entire Act]
Atma Ram vs Shakuntala Rani on 30 August, 2005
Such is not the position in the case in hand, therefore, the judgment of Atma Ram's case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of this case.
Mangat Rai & Anr vs Kidar Nath & Ors on 21 August, 1980
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.
Kuldeep Singh vs Ganpat Lal & Anr on 5 December, 1995
Hon'ble the Apex Court held that in various judgments of the Supreme Court including the judgment delivered in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra) (relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant), a tenant is required to follow the procedure of deposit of rent as provided under the Rent Act itself and any deposit of rent in any other proceedings, cannot be treated as valid deposit of rent by the tenant and, therefore, the tenant is not entitled to any benefit.
S. B. Noronah vs Prem Kumari Khanna on 16 August, 1979
The learned Counsel for the respondent also relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of S.B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna 1979 (2) All India Rent Control Journal, 375) wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court held that common sense should not be kept in cold storage when pleadings are construed and the parties win of lose on substantial questions not technical tortures and the courts cannot be abettors. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, in the facts of this case if the tenant is declared defaulter in payment of rent then it will cause great hardship to the tenant who already deposited the rent with the leave of the court in the court and the court passed the order that the landlord may withdraw the amount. Such interpretation would be against this spirit of the Rent Control Act enacted to give benefit to the tenant and to protect the tenant from eviction otherwise than as provided under the Act of 1950.