Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.46 seconds)

Gurpur Vamana Pai vs Venkatu (Venkatesh) Naika on 29 August, 1935

In Vasanta Pai v. Venkatu Naika, 1936 Mad WN 83 = (AIR 1936 Mad 116). Venkataramana Rao J., has held that the words rent in appears' in Section 114 Transfer of Property Act are wide enough to include even the rent which the lessor may be unable to recover by reason of the bar of limitation. He has also pointed out that before forfeiture can be relieved against 'rent in arrears' must be paid.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

G. Venkatachala Odayar vs Ramachandra Odayar And Anr. on 8 November, 1960

But it should be noted an application by a landlord under Section 3(4)(a) of the Act is an application for eviction of the tenant in a revenue Court, which is totally different from a suit for recovery of rent in a civil Court. As pointed out in Venkatachala Odayar v. Ramachandra Odayar, , it is obvious that the question of arrears of rent of a cultivating tenant and the right of the landlord to recover such arrears from the tenant are not matters which the Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered under the Act to determine, but are matters which may arise incidentally in determining the question whether the cultivating tenant is liable to be evicted or not.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 Next