Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Section 6 in The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
K. Narasimha Rao vs T.M. Nasimuddin Ahmed on 23 February, 1996
As per the terms of the lease agreement as I have referred to above the security deposit of Rs.75,000/- the parties have agreed not to adjust the same towards arrears of rent. Further, I am of the considered view that even on the date of filing of petition under Section 11(4) of the Act itself the arrears of rent exceeds the advance amount in the hands of the landlords. Under such circumstances, it is not open to the tenants to ask the landlords to adjust the advance amount towards arrears of rent, which cannot be done.
R. Murugan vs M.O.M. Abubucker on 17 September, 2005
In support of this contention the learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision of this Court in 2005(5) CTC 473 (R.Murugan Vs. M.O.M.Abubucker) wherein the exact observation runs as follows:-
M. Salem vs Josephine Mary on 31 October, 2003
17.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relying on 2004(1) MLJ 76 (M.Salem Vs. Josephine Mary) would contend that under Ex.R.1-notice it was issued even before the filing of RCOP the tenants had asked the landlords to adjust the rental arrears of Rs.44,000/- due for the months from February 2007 to May 2007 with the advance amount of Rs.75,000/- and hence, the default committed by the tenants will not be construed as a wilful default. The relevant observation in the above said ratio relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners runs as follows:-
Section 7 in The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Modern Hotel, Gudur Represented Bym.N. ... vs K. Radhakrishnaiah & Ors on 26 April, 1989
Reliance was also placed on the ratio in AIR 1989 SC 1510 (Modern Hotel Gudur, rep by M.N.narayanan Vs. K.Radhakrishnaiah and others), wherein the ratio decidendi is as follows:-
Abdul Kader vs G.D. Govindaraj (D) By Lrs on 24 April, 2002
16.The learned counsel for the respondent relying on 2002 (5) SCC 51 (Abdul Kader Vs. G.D.Govindaraj (dead) by LRs), would contend that "rent" means all payments agreed by the tenant to be paid to his landlord for the use and occupation not only of the building and its appurtenances. The exact observation in the above said ratio on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondents runs as follows:-
K.Selvaraj vs J.Narayanan on 28 January, 2008
Further the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority while disposing of RCA.No.829 of 2007, and RCA.No.117 of 2008 in its judgment has referred 2008(2)CTC 375 (K.Selvaraj Vs. J.Narayanan and another) (a judgment rendered by Me) and would contend that this Court has erroneously held that it is not open to the tenant to ask the landlord to adjust the arrears of rent from out of the advance paid until he vacates the premises and hand over the possession to the landlord, forgetting a moment the facts and circumstances of the said case. In the said case the landlord had filed RCOP under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act claiming that the tenant had committed wilful default in paying of rent for a period of 19 months ie., from May 2001 to November 2002 and after admitting the said arrears, had demanded that it is to be adjusted from out of the advance amount of Rs.20,000/- paid by him. At paragraph 8 of the said judgment I have discussed and held as follows:-