Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.39 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Mranalini B. Shah And Anr. vs Bapalal Mohanlal Shah on 1 May, 1978
A copy of the order dated June 4,
1976 has not been placed before us. We, therefore, cannot say that
the court had condoned the delay in depositing the amount of
arrears in accordance with the earlier order or that it has condoned
the consecutive defaults committed every month since April 1975 in
depositing the monthly amount. Merely because it is stated that the
court had permitted the tenant to deposit the said amount, it cannot
be construed that the court had condoned the delay in depositing
the same. We are not holding that the court does possess such a
power. On this question, we do not wish to express any opinion
though it has been held in Mranalini B. Shah v. Bapalal Mohanlal
Page 14 of 17
Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 03:54:33 IST 2022
C/CRA/425/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2022
Shah (19) G. L. R. 1090) that the court has no such power. Assuming
that the court has the power to condone the delay in depositing not
only the arrears but also the consecutive defaults in depositing the
monthly amount over a period of more than one year, the fact
remains that no order condoning the delay is proved to have been
made. Not only this - even for the period subsequent to June 1976,
the tenant has been highly irregular in depositing the amount as
would be evident from a reading of the order of the High Court. The
learned Judge has pointed out that after June 1976 the tenant made
the next deposit of Rs. 143. 70 p. on November 15,1976. The next
deposit in a sum of Rs. 71.85 p. was made on January 7, 1977.
Rs.23.94 p. was deposited on February 9,1977 and different
amounts on June 1, 1977, August 1, 1977 and November 3,1977.
Though it is stated that these deposits were also made with the
permission of the court, it is not shown us that the court had
condoned the delays in depositing these various amounts. In the
absence of the orders of the court being placed before us, we
cannot say that the court had condoned the same either expressly
or by necessary implication again assuming (but without so holding)
that the court does possess such a power ."
Nanji Pancha vs Daulal Naraindas on 18 April, 1968
Thus, it is submitted that in view of the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Naranbhai
Nathubhai Koli vs. Modhia Panalal Maganlal, 1982 GLH 723 and in
the case of Rupaben wd/o Kaththu Dhanji and Anr. vs. Babubhai
Deojibhai, 1983 G.L.H. 211 and in the case of Nanji Pancha Vs.
Daulal Naraindas, (1970) 11 GLR 285, the suit is appropriately
dismissed, since all the dues were cleared by the tenant, after he
knew about the fixation of the standard rent.
Ganpat Ladha vs Sashikant Vishnu Shinde on 21 February, 1978
It is clear to us that the Act interferes with the landlord's right
to property and freedom of contract only for the limited
purpose of protecting tenants from misuse of the landlord's
power to evict them, in these days of scarcity of
accommodation, by asserting his superior rights in property or
trying to exploit his position by extracting too high rents from
helpless tenants. The object was not to deprive the landlord
altogether of his rights in property which have also to be
respected Another object was to make possible eviction of
tenants who fail to carry out their obligation to pay rent to the
landlord despite opportunities given by law in that behalf But
where the conditions of Section 12(3)(a) are not satisfied,
there is a further opportunity given to the tenant to protect
himself against eviction. He can comply with the conditions set
out in Section 12(3)(b) and defeat the landlord's claim for
eviction. If, however, he does not fulfil those conditions, he
cannot claim the protection of Section 12(3)(b) and in that
event, there being no other protection available to him, a
decree for eviction would have to go against him. It is difficult
to see how by any Judicial valour discretion exercisable in
favour of the tenant can be found in Section 12(3)(b), even
where the conditions laid down by it are satisfied, to be strictly
confined within the limits ., prescribed for their operation.
Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed vs Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai on 22 October, 1963
23. The aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court declares
that merely because, the tenant is allowed to deposit the amount
of rent, it cannot be construed that the court had condoned the
delay in depositing the same. It is also held that assuming that
the court has the power to condone the delay in depositing not
only the arrears but also the consecutive defaults in depositing
the monthly amount over a period of more than one year, the
same could not have any bearing since it is deposited without
there being any order condoning the delay. In the present case,
the tenant was already in arrears of rent for the entire period in
the earlier round of suit, and he did not deposit the interim rent
of Rs.50/- which was fixed on the application being CMA No.194
filed by the tenant on 10.02.1975 below Exh.15. The tenant was
in arrears since 28.02.1975 to 31.01.1979. Hence, the suit was
decreed in favour of the landlord vide judgement dated
04.10.1979. The apex court in the case of Vora Abbasbhai
Alimahomed vs. Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai, AIR 1964 SC 1341
Page 15 of 17
Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 03:54:33 IST 2022
C/CRA/425/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2022
that Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act requires the tenant to pay
standard rent and not interim rent and for the purposes of that
clause the expression 'standard rent' may not be equated with
'interim rent' specified under Section 11(3) of the Rent Act and
non-payment of interim rent cannot snatch away the protection
available to the tenant under section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act. In
the present case, the standard rent was fixed at the time of final
judgement dated 04.10.1979, and the tenant was ordered to had
over the vacant possession on or before 31.12.1979 and also to
pay an amount of Rs.1176/-. As noted hereinabove, the payment
details show that even after fixation of the standard rent and
after the remand of the matter, the tenant has not deposited rent
from 30.09.1980 to 31.03.1981. Neither from the record and
proceedings nor from the aforesaid orders, it is reflected that the
Trial Court had passed any order condoning the delay in
depositing the rent. Thus, merely because the Trial Court has
permitted the tenant to deposit the rent, it cannot be held that
the tenant has deposited the rent "regularly", and hence, he is
not entitled to protection under section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act.
Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Naranbhai Nathabhai Koli vs Modhia Panalal Maganlal on 9 April, 1982
Thus, it is submitted that in view of the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Naranbhai
Nathubhai Koli vs. Modhia Panalal Maganlal, 1982 GLH 723 and in
the case of Rupaben wd/o Kaththu Dhanji and Anr. vs. Babubhai
Deojibhai, 1983 G.L.H. 211 and in the case of Nanji Pancha Vs.
Daulal Naraindas, (1970) 11 GLR 285, the suit is appropriately
dismissed, since all the dues were cleared by the tenant, after he
knew about the fixation of the standard rent.