Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.46 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dipak Banerjee vs Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty on 30 July, 1987
In support
of the aforesaid contention the learned counsel placed
reliance on the decision of this Court in Dipak Banerjee vs.
Lilabati Chakraborty (1987) 4 Supreme Court Cases 161,
Jagan Nath (deceased) through LRs.
Gopal Saran vs Satyanarayana on 20 February, 1989
Vs. Chander Bhan and
Others (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases 57, Gopal Saran vs.
Satyanarayana - (1989) Supreme Court Cases 56, Delhi
Stationers and Printers vs. Rajendra Kumar (1990) 2
Supreme Court Cases 331 and United Bank of India vs. Cooks
and Kelvey Properties (P) Limited - (1994) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 9. So far as the question of habitual default is
concerned, Mr. Verma contends that the rent for the months
of September to November 1984 had been paid in December 1984
and Clause 9 of the agreement of tenancy between the
appellant and respondent entitles the tenant to pay the rent
within one month from the date of the notice received from
the landlord, and authorises the landlord to approach the
Court of Law if the rent over 3 months is not paid within
one month of the notice in question, and this being the
position, the Lower Appellate Authority was fully justified
in holding that the tenant cannot be said to be a habitual
defaulter and the High Court committed serious error in
interfering with the said finding. So far as the default in
payment of rent for the months of December 84 to March 85 is
concerned, Mr. Verma contends that the Lower Appellate
Authority was justified in taking into consideration the
refusal of the landlord to the two money orders sent, and
the High Court, therefore, was in error in interfering with
the conclusion on fact of the Appellate Authority under the
Control Order by interfering with the same in exercise of
its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
M/S. Delhi Stationers And Printers vs Rajendra Kumar on 27 February, 1990
Vs. Chander Bhan and
Others (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases 57, Gopal Saran vs.
Satyanarayana - (1989) Supreme Court Cases 56, Delhi
Stationers and Printers vs. Rajendra Kumar (1990) 2
Supreme Court Cases 331 and United Bank of India vs. Cooks
and Kelvey Properties (P) Limited - (1994) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 9. So far as the question of habitual default is
concerned, Mr. Verma contends that the rent for the months
of September to November 1984 had been paid in December 1984
and Clause 9 of the agreement of tenancy between the
appellant and respondent entitles the tenant to pay the rent
within one month from the date of the notice received from
the landlord, and authorises the landlord to approach the
Court of Law if the rent over 3 months is not paid within
one month of the notice in question, and this being the
position, the Lower Appellate Authority was fully justified
in holding that the tenant cannot be said to be a habitual
defaulter and the High Court committed serious error in
interfering with the said finding. So far as the default in
payment of rent for the months of December 84 to March 85 is
concerned, Mr. Verma contends that the Lower Appellate
Authority was justified in taking into consideration the
refusal of the landlord to the two money orders sent, and
the High Court, therefore, was in error in interfering with
the conclusion on fact of the Appellate Authority under the
Control Order by interfering with the same in exercise of
its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
United Bank Of India vs Cooks And Kelvey Properties (P)Ltd on 12 May, 1994
Vs. Chander Bhan and
Others (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases 57, Gopal Saran vs.
Satyanarayana - (1989) Supreme Court Cases 56, Delhi
Stationers and Printers vs. Rajendra Kumar (1990) 2
Supreme Court Cases 331 and United Bank of India vs. Cooks
and Kelvey Properties (P) Limited - (1994) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 9. So far as the question of habitual default is
concerned, Mr. Verma contends that the rent for the months
of September to November 1984 had been paid in December 1984
and Clause 9 of the agreement of tenancy between the
appellant and respondent entitles the tenant to pay the rent
within one month from the date of the notice received from
the landlord, and authorises the landlord to approach the
Court of Law if the rent over 3 months is not paid within
one month of the notice in question, and this being the
position, the Lower Appellate Authority was fully justified
in holding that the tenant cannot be said to be a habitual
defaulter and the High Court committed serious error in
interfering with the said finding. So far as the default in
payment of rent for the months of December 84 to March 85 is
concerned, Mr. Verma contends that the Lower Appellate
Authority was justified in taking into consideration the
refusal of the landlord to the two money orders sent, and
the High Court, therefore, was in error in interfering with
the conclusion on fact of the Appellate Authority under the
Control Order by interfering with the same in exercise of
its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
1