Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Section 101 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
Section 58 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Subhas Chandra Deb vs Subhashini Deb And Anr. on 27 February, 1958
8. Mr Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the scheme
of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for
eviction of a tenant on the ground of defaulter is provided under Section 5(1) proviso (e) of
the Act. A duty is cast upon the court to give a finding as to whether the landlord was able to
show that the tenant is a defaulter within the meaning of Section 5(1) proviso (e) of the Act
and then only the court should proceed to consider the safeguard provided to the tenant u/s
5(4) of the Act. In the present case there is no such finding by the court below that the
Page No.# 6/18
tenant has become a defaulter within the meaning of Section 5 (1) proviso (e) of the Act.
Without such declaration or finding, the court below made a jurisdictional error by
straightway considering the non-compliance of the required conditions by the tenant under
Section 5(4) of the Act. Citing Upendra Chandra Deb Roy vs. Smti Subhashini Deb and
2(two) others reported in 1989(2) GLR 7, Mr. Mishra submits that the said finding as
hereinabove stated are mandatory requirement while deciding the issue of ejectment of a
tenant on the ground of defaulter.
Jugol Kishore Joshi vs Babulal Kucheria & Ors on 26 April, 2016
Relying Prasanna Kr. Khemani Vs. Biswanath Cherenia
reported in 2005(3) GLT 284 and Jugal Kishore Joshi Vs. Babulal Kucheria & Ors reported in 2016(3)
GLT 72, it is further submitted that in the absence of proof of a particular due date of rent, the
tenant cannot be held to be a defaulter. The conduct of the parties in a suit under the Rent
Control Act is also relevant inasmuch as, even if a due date is fixed for payment of rent but
by conduct of the parties same may be changed.
Ganesh Prasad Gupta vs Parwati Devi And Anr. on 8 April, 1996
In support of the contention,
Mr. Mazumdar relies Kuber Prasad Gupta Vs. Parbati Devi and Another reported in 2015(5)
GLR 743 wherein it was held that the tenant is not entitled to deposit the rent in the court if
the rent has not become due and payable to the landlord nor if the same is not offered to be
paid to the landlord and the same is not declined by the landlord.
1