Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)Section 27 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
M. K. Munthan vs M. Pasupathi on 13 July, 2001
Applying the principles laid down in the above case to
the facts of the case in hand, we notice that the Rent Control
Court as also the Appellate Tribunal had taken into
consideration the fact that there was no agreement between
the parties nor was there any practice to tender the rent by
way of cheque or at any time earlier the rent was sent by
post. The tenant had never earlier tendered the rent by way of
cheque, on the contrary, the rent was either being paid in cash
or by way of pay order or demand draft. The said fora had
also taken into consideration the fact that if at all the tenant
had any intention of clearing the rental dues, he could have
deposited the same under Section 27 of the Act which was
not done. Thus taking into consideration the overall facts and
the conduct of the tenant, the Rent Control Court and the
Appellate Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the tender
was not a legal tender. In such circumstances, in our opinion,
the High Court was in error in merely accepting the fact that
the tenant had posted the cheque towards the arrears of rent
and holding such issuance of a cheque by itself would
amount to a legal tender.
1