Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Shah Dhansukhlal Chhaganlal vs Dalichand Virchand Shroff And Others on 1 March, 1968
The case in hand is clearly covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Harbanslal v. Prabhudas, and Dhansukhlal v. Dalichand. In the instant case, the tenant has not filed the standard rent application. He has merely raised the dispute in the written statement.
Section 11 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Firm Of Harbanslal Jagmohandas & Anr vs Prabhudas Shivlal on 16 April, 1971
Thus applying the ratio in Harbanslal's case, the present case is clearly governed by section 12(3)(a) of the Act.
Chhaganlal Mulchand Jain vs Narayan Jagannath Bangh on 22 November, 1982
15. Coming then to the argument of Mrs. Agarwal about the validity of the notice, it is seen that both the lower courts have committed an error in deciding the issue of standard rent in the absence of a standard rent application filed by tenant under section 11 of the Act. No dispute about standard rent is permissible to be raised in a suit if the tenant has not made any application under section 11 of the Act. The finding of fixation of standard rent was thus uncalled for and was without jurisdiction. Even assuming that the standard rent is Rs. 12/- the notice making demand at the rate of Rs. 13.50 ps. cannot be said to be bad in law. The respondent had an option to pay the undisputed amount of rent i.e. at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month and raise dispute as regards the rest of the claim as made by the landlord, which he has not done so, and instead he has raised the dispute in the reply to the notice. As held by the Division Bench in Chhaganlal v. Narayan Jagannath, any mistake in making demand for short amount would not render the notice invalid.
Jaypal Bandu Adake And Anr. vs Basavali Gurulingappa Mhalank And Anr. on 16 March, 1982
11. It is required to be noted at this stage that the decision of Justice Jahagirdar in Gulabchand's case (supra) was over ruled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jaypal Bandu Adake & another v. Basavali Gurulingappa Mhalank & another, 1982 Mah. L.J. page 512. The Division Bench observed: