Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
Section 20 in Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 [Entire Act]
M. Manohara Chetty And Ors. vs C. Coomaraswamy Naidu And Sons on 29 June, 1979
It was so held by the Madras High Court also in M. M. Chetti v. C. CoomarasWamy Naidu, AIR 1980 Mad 212. Hence, the appellate Court herein was justified in considering the plea in regard to sub-letting, even when the landlord had noi filed any cross appeal or objections against the said finding, which is against him.
B. Iswarayya vs Swarnam Iswarayya on 26 June, 1931
4. It was held in Iswarayya v. Iswarayya, AIR 1931 PC 234 that there was no need for the respondent in the appeal to prefer cross-objections, when the impugned order/decree is in his favour, though some of the findings are against him. The wife in that case, filed two petitions for alimony for herself and for maintenance of her children. One decree was passed on those two applications. Rs. 30/-per month was ordered for the eldest girl and Rs. 40/- for each of the other 3 children and thus in all Rs. 150/- was awarded for the children, an amount of Rs. 160/- per monlh was awarded for the wife. The said decree was passed, when a sum of not less than Rs. 300/-per month was prayed for the maintenance of the children and Rs.260/- per month was claimed for the alimony of the wife. When the matter had come up before the High Court in the appeal, the High Court opined that since the children had all ceased to be minors within the meaning of Divorce Act, 1869, no provision could be made for them. But upon the facts of the case, the High Court felt that the wife's alimony should be increased to Rs. 260/- per month as claimed by her. Then it was urged before the Privy Council that as the wife had not preferred any appeal or cross-objections against the decree for alimony at Rs. 160/- per month, the High Court erred in enhancing it at Rs.260/-per month. While adverting to the said contention, the Privy Council observed "that there was no reason why the wife should appeal from the order, which the District Judge had made; there was every reason why she should be satisfied therewith." It was stated that the Appellate Court could enhance the alimony of Rs. 260/-in that case in exercise of the power conferred under 0.41, R. 33, CPC, though no cross-objections were preferred by the wife.
Indian Divorce Act, 1869
Rashik Lal And Others vs Shah Gokuldas & Anr on 2 February, 1989
14. The eviction petitioner alleged that he issued notice as per Ex. A4 and R-l received it as per Ex. A-5 acknowledgement dt. 15-3-1978. As the receipt of the notice as per Ex. A4 was not specifically denied and as even R1 had not come into the witness-box to deny the signature .on Ex. A5, the issuer of the said notice was rightly believed by the Courts below. It was stated in the said notice that out of the rent due at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month from November, 1976 to 15-3-1978, only an amount of Rs. 840/ - was paid and the rent of Rs. I,080/-i.e., the rent for 9 months, was still due and in spite of repeated demands, the rents were not paid. After receipt of the said notice, Rs. 240/- was paid on 19-4-1978 and Rs.800/- was paid on 22-6-1978. The eviction petition was filed on 15-1-1979. An amount of Rs. 240/- was paid on 7-2-1979. It was pleaded for the tenant that the rent was being paid once in two months and the eviction petitioner used to receive the same without any demur and hence on the basis of the conduct, it can be inferred that the rent has to be paid once in two months or it could be paid in lump sum. S. P. Deshmukh v. Shah Niharchand, and Rashik Lal v. Shah Gokuldas, were relied upon in support of the said contention.
Seetaram And Ors. vs Smt. Ramabai And Anr. on 25 February, 1958
In Seetaram v. Ramabai, the relevant facts considered are as under:
Vriddhachalam Pillai vs Chaldean Syrian Bank Ltd., Ananother on 3 December, 1963
In Virdhachalam Pillai v. Chaldean Bank, , it was held that "the respondent in appeal is entitled to canvass the correctness of the findings against him in order to support the decree that has been passed agaisnt the appellant." It was so observed by the Supreme Court when it was urged for the appellant that when the Court categorically found that there was an antecedent debt which was discharged by the suit mortgage loan only to the extent of Rs. 59,000/- and odd and there being no appeal from the bank against the finding that the balance of Rs. 80,000/- had not gone in discharge of an antecedent debt, the respondent was precluded from putting forward a . contention that the entire sum of Rs. 80,000/-went for the discharge of antecedent debt.
Kotha Appa Rao vs M. Mohammad Haneef on 16 April, 1948
It was stated R2 and RW1 that Rl had taken this premises on lease for his (R2's) business. It was further stated that in view of the indebtedness, the name of the shop was changed. In view of the said facts, it is just and proper to hold that there was no sub-letting from R1 and R2, for it is a mere case where the cloth business was run by the family comprising R1 and his son-in-law(R2) and the name was merely changed from that of Rl to R2. When a new partner was taken into the partnership, and the firm as a tenant was carrying on a business in the rented premises, it was held in D. Appa Rao v. M. Hanu-mayamrna, (1980) 1 APLJ (HC) 168 that subletting does not arise in such a case. The object and intendment of S. 2(a) of the Rent Control Act is to see that without the written consent of the landlord, there should not be any change in the tenant, for in cases of transfer of right of the tenant or sub-letting, a stranger without the consent of the landlord can claim right of possession. But, when the father-in-law and son-in-law are living together and when the business was carried on by the son- in-taw in the name of Rl, even though it is not a case of Hindu Family, still on the basis of the facts, it had to be inferred that the family comprising the father-in-law and son-in-law, is tenant and it is immaterial whether the business of the said family in such a case was carried on in the name of father-in-law or son-in-law or both. Thus, on the basis of the material on record, it can be stated that it is not a case of transfer of tfie right under the lease by Rl to R2 but it is a case of lease in favour of both Rl and R2. Thus, this point is held against the landlord.