Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)M/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004
Accordingly, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court that the Appellate Authority has to be alive to the fact that it is
depriving the landlord from the fruits of the decree and is postponing its
orders of eviction, the Court has to put the tenant on such terms so as to
CR No.2117 of 2012 9
direct him to compensate the landlord by payment of reasonable amount.
Anderson Wright And Co. vs Amar Nath Roy And Ors. on 19 April, 2005
On the other hand, counsel
for the landlord-respondent contended that the law has been settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. (supra) and
Anderson Wright & Co. (supra) and even the observations of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in State of Maharashtra (supra) to support the principle that
once the eviction order has been passed, the contractual rate of rent comes
to an end.
State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs M/S Super Max Internationalp.Ltd.& Ors on 27 August, 2009
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Maharashtra (supra) has held as
under:
Mohammad Ahmad & Anr vs Atma Ram Chauhan & Ors on 13 May, 2011
9. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that 2 showrooms,
mainly, SCO No.14, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh and SCO No.40,
Sector 26, Chandigarh are paying `5,77,500/- from October, 2011 and
`6,03,675/- from 01.08.2011 for basement and ground-floor for running
CR No.2117 of 2012 10
restaurants, viz., Kava Lounge and Mainland China, it cannot be said that
the amount of `3,75,000/- fixed by the Appellate Authority is fanciful,
excessive or arbitrary in any manner. The premises in question are stated to
be 4400 sq.yards on the ground-floor and 2400 sq.yards on the basement
which works-out to only Rs.55/- per sq.yards. Admittedly, the tenant has
not enhanced the rent from 1977 and 1981 and as per the first principle laid
down in Mohammad Ahmad's case (supra) if the rent is too low in
comparison to the present market rent, then the present market rent has to be
worked-out on the basis of premises let out on rent recently which has been
done by referring to the registered lease deeds. The premises are also
located on the same road and the type of construction, the location and
accessibility to the main road and the parking space facilities are identical
and this fact is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner also.
Accordingly, keeping in view the said factors, no fault can be found with
the well reasoned orders passed by the Appellate Authority, and
accordingly, the said orders are up-held. The Appellate Authority has also
taken care to ensure that the amount deposited is not released to the landlord
and in case of success of appeal, it is liable to be refunded back to the tenant
and thus, the interest of the tenant has been protected to that extent and thus
the landlord is only entitled to the amount due as per the contractual rent.
Since the amount of arrears had to be deposited within a month from the
impugned order, i.e., 14.03.2012, the petitioner is given liberty to deposit
the said amount by 15.05.2012 and the other conditions imposed by the
Appellate Authority shall remain the same.
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
1