Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.36 seconds)Section 114 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 186 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Adyapadi Vasudeva Udpa And Ors. vs Krishna Udpa And Ors. on 1 December, 1920
In Vasudeva Udpa v. Krishna Udpa (1921) 40 M.L.J. 460 : I.L.R. 44 Mad. 629 at 631, it is pointed out that the 'tenant' should not be given relief against forfeiture until the full arrears are paid, the full arrears being probably limited to twelve years. But having regard to the provisions of the Act, arrears of rent subsequent to 31st March, 1954 alone could be directed to be deposited. It is true that a direction by the Revenue Court to a cultivating tenant to pay arrears of rent for a number of years beyond the period of limitation would impose a heavy burden on him. But the answer to this contention is that such a tenant who has defaulted to pay rent for a long period is not really entitled to ask the Revenue Court to exercise its discretion of not evicting him from his holding at the instance of the landlord. If in spite of it the Revenue Court thinks it fit to exercise its discretion even in the case of such a tenant, it is but reasonable that he should be asked to pay the entire arrears of rent which he would have to pay to avoid eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent.
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Hansraj Gupta vs The Official Liquidators, Dehra-Dun ... on 16 December, 1932
8. The Privy Council decision in Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidators of Dehra Dun etc. Company I.L.R. (1932) 54 All. 1067, relied on by Alagiriswami, J., in his order of reference is clearly distinguishable and it can hardly furnish any guidance to answer the question that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition. It was held in that decision that the Liquidator of a company could not by making an application under Section 186 of the Companies Act get over the period of limitation, which would apply if he were to bring a regular suit in the Company's name to recover moneys from a contributory. The principle of the decision is that a time-barred debt could not be enforced by a summary order under Section 186 of the Companies Act of 1913, as the section did not create new liabilities or confer new rights, but merely created a summary procedure for enforcing existing liabilities. But. it should be noted that an application by a landlord under Section 3(4)(a) of the Act is an application for eviction of the tenant in Revenue Court, which is totally different from a suit for recovery of rent in a civil Court.
G. Venkatachala Odayar vs Ramachandra Odayar And Anr. on 8 November, 1960
As pointed out in Venkatachala Odayar v. Ramachandra Odayar , it is obvious that the question of arrears of rent of a cultivating tenant and the right of the landlord to recover such arrears from the tenant are not matters which the Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered under the Act to determine, but are matters which may arise incidentally in determining the question whether the cultivating tenant is liable to be evicted or not.
Gurpur Vamana Pai vs Venkatu (Venkatesh) Naika on 29 August, 1935
In Vamana Pai v. Venkatu Naika (1936) M.W.N. 83, Venkataramana Rao, J., has held that the words 'rent in arrears' in Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act are wide enough to include even the rent which the lessor may be unable to recover by reason of the bar of limitation. He has also pointed out that before forfeiture can be relieved against 'rent in arrear' must be paid.