Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.39 seconds)
Bhupinder Singh vs Rajender Kathuria on 24 August, 2021 cites

Smt. Kamla Devi vs Shri Vasdev on 14 December, 1994

9. The Ld. RC vide the impugned order dt.23.10.2017, observed that the essence of Section 14(2) and 15(7) of the Act is whether there has been a substantial compliance with the order passed u/s 15 (1) DRC Act. Ld. RC while placing reliance upon the judgments in the cases of of Ram Murti Vs. Bhola Nath, (1984) 3 SCC and Kamla Devi Vs. Vasdev (1995) 1 SCC 356 observed that the Controller has the discretion to condone the delay but this discretion to be exercised after due application of mind to the facts of the case. The case of the applicant-therein is that respondent- therein was directed to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.24,000/- along with balance amount of rent @ Rs.2,000/- per month w.e.f March 2004 till July 2014 along with interest @ 15% per annum to the petitioner-therein vide order dated 02.07.2014; that in terms of order dated 02.07.2014, no interest was to be paid on arrears of Rs. 24,000/- and interest on the balance amount of the rent amounts to Rs.1,99,500/-; that the said order was challenged before Ld. Tribunal whereby the order was stayed subject to the payment of entire arrears of rents @ Rs.2,000/- per month; that in compliance of the said order respondent has deposited the entire arrears of rent; that the said appeal has been dismissed and the respondent was to deposit arrears of rent, however, same could not be deposited as petitioner mala fidely got part of the premises vacated from him by playing fraud. The plea taken by the respondent was that he could not deposit arrears of rent on time due to mala fide of the petitioner in getting the premises vacated from him by playing fraud.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 47 - S C Sen - Full Document

Raghbir Singh vs Sheela Wanti & Anr. on 18 February, 2009

If substantive amount of rent already paid, eviction order may not be passed. Another DD of Rs. 51,500/- in favour of the respondent was also prepared by the appellant on 18.11.2014 but as the appeal before Ld. RCT was pending, the same could not be deposited before the Ld. ARC. The delay in filing the said application is not because of the appellant but due to the judicial as well as technical procedure in deciding the appeal against the impugned order dated 02.07.2014. Ld. Counsel for the appellant, in support of his case, relied upon the judgments in the cases of Manmohan Kaur V. Surya Kant Bhagwandi 1989 AIR 291; Santosh Mehta V. Om Prakash & Anr. 1980 AIR 1664; Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. Sh. Vasdev 1994 legaleagle (SC) 1175; Satish Parashar V. Prem Bihari (since deceased) in CM(M) No.476/2020 & CM No.24292/2020 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 07.04.2021; Babu Lal Goel V. Shiv Kumar & Ors. in CM (M) 430/2012 & CM No.6715/2012 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi RCA No. 142/19 Bhupender Singh vs. Rajender Kathuria Page No. 5 of 12 on 20.12.2013; Sh. Lok Nath & Ors. Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar in CM (M) 360/2012 & CM No.5474/2012 (for exemption) decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 30.07.2014; Raghbir Singh Vs. Sheela Wanti & Anr. in CM (M) 133/1999 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 18.02.2009.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 100 - S N Dhingra - Full Document

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

9. The Ld. RC vide the impugned order dt.23.10.2017, observed that the essence of Section 14(2) and 15(7) of the Act is whether there has been a substantial compliance with the order passed u/s 15 (1) DRC Act. Ld. RC while placing reliance upon the judgments in the cases of of Ram Murti Vs. Bhola Nath, (1984) 3 SCC and Kamla Devi Vs. Vasdev (1995) 1 SCC 356 observed that the Controller has the discretion to condone the delay but this discretion to be exercised after due application of mind to the facts of the case. The case of the applicant-therein is that respondent- therein was directed to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.24,000/- along with balance amount of rent @ Rs.2,000/- per month w.e.f March 2004 till July 2014 along with interest @ 15% per annum to the petitioner-therein vide order dated 02.07.2014; that in terms of order dated 02.07.2014, no interest was to be paid on arrears of Rs. 24,000/- and interest on the balance amount of the rent amounts to Rs.1,99,500/-; that the said order was challenged before Ld. Tribunal whereby the order was stayed subject to the payment of entire arrears of rents @ Rs.2,000/- per month; that in compliance of the said order respondent has deposited the entire arrears of rent; that the said appeal has been dismissed and the respondent was to deposit arrears of rent, however, same could not be deposited as petitioner mala fidely got part of the premises vacated from him by playing fraud. The plea taken by the respondent was that he could not deposit arrears of rent on time due to mala fide of the petitioner in getting the premises vacated from him by playing fraud.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 146 - A P Sen - Full Document

Smt. Meena Sharma vs Shri Rajiv Kumar on 3 March, 2015

10. Vide the impugned order dt.23.10.2017, the Ld. RC gone through the judgments, relied upon by the Ld. counsel for applicant/respondent in the case of Meena Sharma Vs. Rajiv Kumar, 2014 Delhi, wherein it has been held that the benefit of Section 14 (2) can be claimed by the tenant only if he meets its precondition, which is compliance with an order under Section 15 of the Act. The Ld. RC considered how the said judgment is supporting the case of applicant since admittedly he has not complied the order dated 02.07.2014 i.e. the final order containing order under Section 15(1) of the Act as well.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - M Gupta - Full Document

Manmohan Kaur vs Surya Kant Bhagwandi on 4 October, 1988

If substantive amount of rent already paid, eviction order may not be passed. Another DD of Rs. 51,500/- in favour of the respondent was also prepared by the appellant on 18.11.2014 but as the appeal before Ld. RCT was pending, the same could not be deposited before the Ld. ARC. The delay in filing the said application is not because of the appellant but due to the judicial as well as technical procedure in deciding the appeal against the impugned order dated 02.07.2014. Ld. Counsel for the appellant, in support of his case, relied upon the judgments in the cases of Manmohan Kaur V. Surya Kant Bhagwandi 1989 AIR 291; Santosh Mehta V. Om Prakash & Anr. 1980 AIR 1664; Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. Sh. Vasdev 1994 legaleagle (SC) 1175; Satish Parashar V. Prem Bihari (since deceased) in CM(M) No.476/2020 & CM No.24292/2020 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 07.04.2021; Babu Lal Goel V. Shiv Kumar & Ors. in CM (M) 430/2012 & CM No.6715/2012 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi RCA No. 142/19 Bhupender Singh vs. Rajender Kathuria Page No. 5 of 12 on 20.12.2013; Sh. Lok Nath & Ors. Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar in CM (M) 360/2012 & CM No.5474/2012 (for exemption) decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 30.07.2014; Raghbir Singh Vs. Sheela Wanti & Anr. in CM (M) 133/1999 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 18.02.2009.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 19 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 Next