Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)Section 14 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Khimji Bhimji Majithia vs Taraben Lalji Soni on 22 December, 1981
In the absence of the demand it cannot be said that the tenant had been given the required opportunity to save his tenancy from the consequences of default by not paying the rent. The notice dated April 19, 1982, served on the tenant in both the cases, therefore, was not a notice of demand. I find support to this view from decisions in Ram Krishna Prasadv. Mohd. Yahia, ; Peter Paul Coelho and others v. Smt. Constance D'Souza and others, Air 1980 Karnataka 38; and Khimji Bhimji Majithia v. Taraben Lalji Soni, (DB. In Hari Mohan Nehru v. Rameshwar Dayal, , this Court even went further and held "the word 'demand' used in the Act suggests something more than mere asking. The 'demand' of rent holds out a threat to enforce it by eviction proceedings, if not paid within two months of service of demand."
Hari Mohan Nehru vs Rameshwar Dayal on 4 February, 1980
In the absence of the demand it cannot be said that the tenant had been given the required opportunity to save his tenancy from the consequences of default by not paying the rent. The notice dated April 19, 1982, served on the tenant in both the cases, therefore, was not a notice of demand. I find support to this view from decisions in Ram Krishna Prasadv. Mohd. Yahia, ; Peter Paul Coelho and others v. Smt. Constance D'Souza and others, Air 1980 Karnataka 38; and Khimji Bhimji Majithia v. Taraben Lalji Soni, (DB. In Hari Mohan Nehru v. Rameshwar Dayal, , this Court even went further and held "the word 'demand' used in the Act suggests something more than mere asking. The 'demand' of rent holds out a threat to enforce it by eviction proceedings, if not paid within two months of service of demand."
Mangoo Singh vs The Election Tribunal, Bareillyand ... on 17 September, 1957
(16) In Mangoo Singh v. Election Tribunal, Bareilly and others, , the Supreme Court interpreting the term "notice of demand" as used in Section 168 of the U P. Municipalities Act (2 of 1916) held as under: "NOR do we think that the word 'demand' attracts the operation of Section 168. It may be readily conceded that the word 'demand' ordinarily means something more than what is due; it means something which has been demanded, called for or asked for. But the meaning of a word must take colour from the context in which it is used. In clause (g) the context in which the word 'demand' is used has a very obvious and clear reference to the amount of arrears or dues on which the disqualification depends; therefore, the expression used is-'arrears in the payment of municipal tax or other dues in excess of one year's demand'. The word 'demand' in that context and in the collocation of words in which it has been used can only mean' in excess of one year's municipal tax or other dues.' We have been referred to several meanings of the word 'demand' in standard English dictionaries and Law lexicons. When the context makes the meaning of a word quite clear, it becomes unnecessary to search for and select a particular meaning out of the diverse meanings a word is capable of, according to lexicographers. If it sufficient for our purpose to state that even in standard dictionaries and law lexicons, it is well recognised that the word 'demand' may mean simply a 'claim' or 'due' without importing any further meaning of calling upon the person liable to pay the claim or due."
Peter Paul Coelho And Ors. vs Constance D'Souza And Ors. on 25 January, 1979
In the absence of the demand it cannot be said that the tenant had been given the required opportunity to save his tenancy from the consequences of default by not paying the rent. The notice dated April 19, 1982, served on the tenant in both the cases, therefore, was not a notice of demand. I find support to this view from decisions in Ram Krishna Prasadv. Mohd. Yahia, ; Peter Paul Coelho and others v. Smt. Constance D'Souza and others, Air 1980 Karnataka 38; and Khimji Bhimji Majithia v. Taraben Lalji Soni, (DB. In Hari Mohan Nehru v. Rameshwar Dayal, , this Court even went further and held "the word 'demand' used in the Act suggests something more than mere asking. The 'demand' of rent holds out a threat to enforce it by eviction proceedings, if not paid within two months of service of demand."
Smt. Anand Kaur vs Pritam Lal on 14 January, 1982
(17) The decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Anand Kaur v. Pritam Lal, 1982 (1) Rcj 674, has no application to the question involved in the present appeals.
Section 168 in The U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 [Entire Act]
1