Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)B.P.N. Shrivastava vs Poori Bai on 29 September, 1980
(15) It is correct that the tenant could not unilaterally suspend the deposit of rent and if she does so, she commits breach of the order under Section 15(1) of the Act. (See B.P.N. Shrivastava v. Poori Bai, . However, this breach alone would not lead to the conclusion that the default willful or contumacious. The Addl Controller and the Tribunal fell in a error in coming to the conclusion that because of this breach the default was willful or contumacious. They were required to examine the circumstances due to which default occurred. The tenant, as is clear from her affidavit and the affidavit of her counsel, did not deposit the rent for the said months because of the advise given to her by her counsel. Default committed on the advice given to her by her counsel cannot be termed willful or contumacious. The default was due to bona fide belief, based on the advice of the counsel, that she was entitled to suspend the rent and need not deposit the rent in compliance of the order under Section 15(1) of the Act. It may be mentioned that prior to July, 1983 the tenant duly complied the order. "
Section 15 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
1