Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 114 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999
Praduman Kumar vs Virendra Goyal (Dead) By L. Rs on 11 March, 1969
22. The appellants'/defendants' counsel argued that
when the ejectment of a tenant is sought on the ground of
non-payment of rent, the tenant can make payment of the
rent during the pendency of the suit. Once this payment is
made, the tenant cannot be evicted. He referred to Section
114 of the Transfer of Property Act (for brevity, "the T.P.
Act"). He argued that in one case the defendant made an
application under Section 114 of the T.P. Act and sent a
cheque to the plaintiff for Rs.5,004/- towards arrears of rent.
The Courts below have not considered this application at all.
Thus, the decree passed against the defendants is not
justifiable. He also placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of R.S. Lala Praduman Kumar v
Virendra Goyal (dead) by his legal representatives and
others (AIR 1969 SC 1349). He also further submitted that
even now the defendants are ready to pay the rent with
arrears, cost and interest.
Article 4 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Asaram Bapu Waghmode And Anr. vs Bhanudas Dhondiba Patil And Ors. on 22 July, 1955
20. Referring to this direction, the learned counsel
for the appellant argued that the two suits here should have
been transferred to Court of Small Causes, and this having
been not done, the decrees are inherently void because of
lack of jurisdiction and therefore the legality of the decree
can be questioned even at the stage of second appeal. On
this point he refered to the judgment of Bombay in the case
of Asaram Bapu Waghmode (supra). There cannot be any
dispute with regard to the position of law enunciated in this
judgment. But here in this case, what needs to be further
examined is merely for the reason that there did not take
: 22 :
place transfer of the suit by the original side to Small Causes
jurisdiction, can it be said that the decree in the suits have
become unexecutable and even cannot be questioned in the
second appeal. This position is made clear by the Full Bench
itself in para 104 of its judgment, which is as below:-