Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)
Smt. Kamla Devi vs Shri Vasdev on 14 December, 1994 cites

Shyamcharan Sharma vs Dharamdas on 4 December, 1979

23. We are unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that the case of Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath and another, (1984) 3 SCC 111, was wrongly decided and reliance was wrongly placed in that case on the decision of a Bench of three Judges of this Court in the case of Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas, (1980) 2 SCC 151. In our view, sub- section (7) of Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 gives a discretion to the Rent Controller and does not contain a mandatory provision for striking out the defence of the tenant against eviction. The Rent Controller may or may not pass an order striking out the defence. The exercise of this discretion will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If the Rent Controller is of the view that in the facts of a particular case the time to make payment or deposit pursuant to an order passed under sub- section (1) of Section 15 should be extended, he may do so by passing a suitable order. Similarly, if he is not satisfied about the case made out by the tenant, he may order the defence against eviction to be struck out. But, the power to strike out the defence against eviction is discretionary and must not be mechanically exercised without any application of mind to the facts of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 69 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Ram Murti vs Bhola Nath And Anr. on 1 May, 1984

23. We are unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that the case of Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath and another, (1984) 3 SCC 111, was wrongly decided and reliance was wrongly placed in that case on the decision of a Bench of three Judges of this Court in the case of Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas, (1980) 2 SCC 151. In our view, sub- section (7) of Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 gives a discretion to the Rent Controller and does not contain a mandatory provision for striking out the defence of the tenant against eviction. The Rent Controller may or may not pass an order striking out the defence. The exercise of this discretion will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If the Rent Controller is of the view that in the facts of a particular case the time to make payment or deposit pursuant to an order passed under sub- section (1) of Section 15 should be extended, he may do so by passing a suitable order. Similarly, if he is not satisfied about the case made out by the tenant, he may order the defence against eviction to be struck out. But, the power to strike out the defence against eviction is discretionary and must not be mechanically exercised without any application of mind to the facts of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 146 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next