Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)
Thomas John vs P. Kochammini Amma And Ors., Etc., on 8 July, 1994 cites

A.S. Sulochana vs C. Dharmalingam on 28 November, 1986

15. Learned counsel for the landlords would then point out that the decision, (1987) 1 SCC 180 : (AIR 1987 SC 242); Sulochana v. Dharmalingam was distinguished in Pulin Behari Lal v. Mahadeb Dutta, (1993) 1 SCC 629 : (1993 AIR SCW 731). The Supreme Court was considering the question whether waiver can be applied against the landlords merely on account of acceptance of rent. The Supreme Court observed that it was necessary for the tenant to prove that the landlords had accepted the rent being fully conscious that by this act they were relinquishing the right of eviction available to them on the ground of subletting under Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act which contained more or less provision similar to the provisions contained in Kerala Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Act is for the protection of the rights of the tenants but at the same time it does not permit the subletting by a tenant without the consent in writing of the landlord and this provision has been kept in public interest for the benefit of the landlords and the same can only be negatived by an act of conscious relinquishment of such right by the landlord. Waiver is a question of fact which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court further held that in the case of waiver of any provisions of the statute it is necessary to prove that there was conscious relinquishment of the advantage of such provisions of the statute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 35 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Pulin Behari Lal vs Mahadeb Dutte And Ors on 3 February, 1993

15. Learned counsel for the landlords would then point out that the decision, (1987) 1 SCC 180 : (AIR 1987 SC 242); Sulochana v. Dharmalingam was distinguished in Pulin Behari Lal v. Mahadeb Dutta, (1993) 1 SCC 629 : (1993 AIR SCW 731). The Supreme Court was considering the question whether waiver can be applied against the landlords merely on account of acceptance of rent. The Supreme Court observed that it was necessary for the tenant to prove that the landlords had accepted the rent being fully conscious that by this act they were relinquishing the right of eviction available to them on the ground of subletting under Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act which contained more or less provision similar to the provisions contained in Kerala Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Act is for the protection of the rights of the tenants but at the same time it does not permit the subletting by a tenant without the consent in writing of the landlord and this provision has been kept in public interest for the benefit of the landlords and the same can only be negatived by an act of conscious relinquishment of such right by the landlord. Waiver is a question of fact which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court further held that in the case of waiver of any provisions of the statute it is necessary to prove that there was conscious relinquishment of the advantage of such provisions of the statute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 31 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document
1