Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.31 seconds)Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
Section 115 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Maragathammal vs Kamalammal on 11 September, 2006
25.8 In the case of Maragathammal v. Kamalammal (2006) 8 SCC
152 Default in payment of rent, when deliberate and without any valid
explanation, amounts to wilful default and is a valid ground for eviction under
Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
1960
25.9 In case of Mariyam Begum v. Basheerunnisa Begum, (2001) 8
SCC 230, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a tenant’s failure to deposit the
rent during the pendency of proceedings, despite being directed to do so as
a pre-condition to contest, amounts to wilful default, and such a tenant is liable
to be evicted.
Mariyam Begum vs Basheerunnisa Begum And Ors on 26 September, 2001
25.8 In the case of Maragathammal v. Kamalammal (2006) 8 SCC
152 Default in payment of rent, when deliberate and without any valid
explanation, amounts to wilful default and is a valid ground for eviction under
Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
1960
25.9 In case of Mariyam Begum v. Basheerunnisa Begum, (2001) 8
SCC 230, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a tenant’s failure to deposit the
rent during the pendency of proceedings, despite being directed to do so as
a pre-condition to contest, amounts to wilful default, and such a tenant is liable
to be evicted.
K. Narasimha Rao vs T.M. Nasimuddin Ahmed on 23 February, 1996
24.2. The learned senior counsel placing reliance upon the judgement in
the case of K.Narasimha Rao v. T.M.Nasimuddin Ahmed [(1996) 3 SCC 45]
would submit that the landlord was bound to immediately refund that excess
amount even before the arrears accrued, and having not done so, was bound to
adjust it.
P.M. Punnoose vs K.M. Munneruddin And Ors on 23 July, 2003
16 of 47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 03:43:36 pm )
C.R.P.No.1039 of 2021
24.5 The learned senior counsel for the tenant placing reliance upon the
judgement in the case of P.M.Punnoose v. K.M.Munneruddin [(2003) 10
SCC 610] submitted that, in the absence of any notice of demand as required
under the Explanation to Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the burden of proving wilful default rests
squarely on the landlord. In the present case, no such notice was issued or
served upon the tenant claiming arrears of rent. Furthermore, when there
existed a genuine dispute regarding the quantum of monthly rent payable, the
tenant cannot be held to have wilfully defaulted in payment or tender of rent
within the meaning of Section 10[2] of the Rent Control Act. It was therefore
contended that both the rent controller and the Rent Control appellate
authority, in exercise of their powers under the Act, ought to have granted an
opportunity to the tenant to tender or deposit the arrears, if any, before passing
an order of eviction. The failure to do so has resulted in a miscarriage of
justice, and hence, the order of eviction warrants interference by this Court in
revision.