Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)
Prahlad Rai&Anr; vs Madhusudana Acharya&Ors; on 11 December, 2017 cites

Jamna Lal vs Kanhaiya Lal on 25 November, 1982

In Jamna Lal vs. Kanhaiya Lal (supra) this Court held that, it must be understood that it is not a right of the tenant to obtain such as extension for deposit of provisional rent but the Court has discretion can only be exercised in a judicial manner. This, I may add, as non-deposit of arrears of provisional rent or subsequent rent month to month within time directed by the Court or extended time, entails crystallization of the (12 of 13) [CW-20166/2017] landlord's, statutory right to have the defence of the tenant struck off.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Nasiruddin And Ors vs Sita Ram Agarwal on 28 January, 2003

Extension of time is then an exception provided for in the discretion of the trial court. It was submitted that following the expiry of time granted by the trial court, a minimum of 15 days or maximum of three months, non deposit of provisional rent in law entails the consequence defence of the tenant being struck off. An order of the Court under Section 13(5) of the Act of 1950 only application of the landlord is only a formality as it is statutorily mandated. Mr. Nirmal Kumar Goyal submitted that it has been held in the case of Nasiruddin and Others (supra) that time for deposit of provisional rent can not in any eventuality be extended beyond a period of three months. Mr. N.K. Goyal submitted that mere the fortuitous circumstances of the defence of the tenant not being struck off for non deposit of provisional rent within time as directed by the Court cannot be construed to the advantage of the tenant nor give him a license of moving a grossly delayed (10 of 13) [CW-20166/2017] application for extension of time/ condonation of delay after 13 years on 23.04.2014.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 351 - Full Document

Sayeda Akhtar vs Abdul Ahad on 18 July, 2003

Mr. Nirmal Goyal relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sayeda Akhtar vs. Abdul Ahad reported in [(2003) AIR SC 2985] and submitted that albeit the aforesaid judgment arose out of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 the principle enunciated therein would attract to the facts of the present case. He submitted that the Apex Court has held in the said case that an application for extension of time for deposit of arrears of rent has to be moved for the satisfaction of the Trial Court within the statutorily permissible time limit for deposit of provisional rent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 79 - Full Document
1