Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.68 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Ram Prakash Ghai vs Karam Chand And Anr. on 3 August, 1962
25. Shri Y. S. Mankad, who appeared on behalf of the opponent plaintiff, however, contended that the Calcutta decision of AIR 1960 Cal 378 (supra) is not only not applicable to the facts of the case but the same does not lay down a good law in view of the decision' given by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ram Prakash Ghai v. Karam Chand, AIR 1963 All 47.
Section 3 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 103 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 23 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Nanalal Girdharlal And Anr. vs Gulamnabi Jamalbhai Motorwala And Ors. on 2 March, 1972
31. Shri Y. S. Mankad also placed reliance upon the following observations of the Allahabad decision of in the above referred case of AIR 1963 All 47:
Sm. Daya Debi vs Chapala Debi on 23 March, 1959
In support of this contention reliance was placed on the decision of Calcutta High Court in Sm. Daya Debi v. Chapala Debi. We are unable to accept this contention. In the case referred to above the assignment of the rent had taken place prior to the institution of the suit. Under that circumstance the Calcutta High Court opined that at the time of the institution of the suit there were no arrears of rent. It is not necessary for our present purpose to consider the correctness of that decision. Suffice it to say that on the facts of this case, the rule laid down in that case is not apposite. Herein admittedly on the date the suit was institute', there was a valid cause of action for evicting the appellant. , What the court has to consider in every case is where the suit was validly instituted. If a suit is validly instituted a decree must necessarily follow, unless the law prescribes otherwise. Undoubtedly the present suit is based on a valid cause of action. Therefore all that we have to see is whether any subsequent event has happened necessitating the denial of the relief asked for. Paying or tendering the money under Section 12 (3) (b) is merely a concession granted to the tenant. He may avail of that concession or he may not avail of it. If he avails of that concession then the relief of ejectment asked for will not be granted though the landlord will ordinarily be entitled to the costs of the suit. There is no denying the fact that at the time the suit was instituted, the 1st respondent was the "landlord", as defined in the Act and at the time the decree came to be made, the 2nd plaintiff was the "landlord". The deed of assignment has not been printed. Therefore, we do not know its terms. We have to proceed on the basis that the 1st respondent had assigned -all his rights, title and interest in the suit premises to the 2nd plaintiff. We must assume that in particular he had also assigned his right in the decree that may be passed in the suit.