Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)Mr.Bhaskar vs J. Venkatarama Naidu,Rep. By His Power ... on 10 September, 1996
7. Again in M. Bhaskar v. Venkatarama Naidu2 with reference to similar provisions contained in the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, this Court observed that when the landlord is evading payment of rent, the tenant has to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the Act i.e. to issue notice to the landlord to name the bank and if he does not name the bank, the tenant has to file application before the Rent Controller for permission to deposit rent. The tenant did not follow that procedure. Omission to avail of the prescribed procedure disentitles the tenant to plead that there was no wilful default on his part. The landlord was, therefore, entitled to seek eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent on the part of the tenant.
Kuldeep Singh vs Ganpat Lal & Anr on 5 December, 1995
6. The counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the tenant had not fulfilled the conditions prescribed in Section 8 of the Act before making deposit of rent in court. Hence similar circumstances and while dealing with almost similar provisions contained in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, this Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal1 held: (SCC p. 249, para 8)
8. In the present case, the appellant is seeking to avail of the benefit of the legal fiction under Section 19-A(4) of the Act. It is settled law that a legal fiction is to be limited to the purpose for which it is created and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field.
The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
Section 11 in The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
M/S Chordia Automobiles vs S. Moosa & Ors on 29 February, 2000
(i) (2000)3 SUPREME COURT CASES 282- CHORDIA AUTOMOBILES V. S.MOOSA AND OTHERS relating to the concept 'Willful default.'
8. Wilful default means an act consciously or deliberately done with open defiance and intent not to pay the rent. In the present case the amount of rent defaulted firstly is on account of the fact that the agent of the landlord did not come to collect the rent for some reason. Further, notice of default contained the disputed rent. This fact coupled with the fact that eviction suit was filed before maturing a case of wilful default in terms of the explanation to the proviso of Section 10(2). The dispute of rent admittedly was genuine. Further, we find the conduct of the appellant throughout in the past being not of a defaulter or irregular payer of rent. Thus, all these circumstances cumulatively come to only one conclusion that the appellant cannot be held to be a wilful defaulter.
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent And Eviction) Control Act, 1960
S. Sundaram Pillai, Etc vs V.R. Pattabiraman Etc on 24 January, 1985
In S.Sundaram Pillai v. V.r.Pattabiraman this Court had occasion to consider the word 'wilful default' under Section 10(2) of the aforesaid Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 which is reproduced below:(SCC pp.605-06, paras 21-26)
21. Before, however, going into this question further, let us find out the real meaning and content of the word 'wilful' or the words 'wilful default'. In the book A Dictionary of Law by L.B.Curzon, at p.361 the words 'wilful' and 'wilful default' have been defined thus:
E. Palanisamy vs Palanisamy (D) By Lrs & Ors on 31 October, 2002
(ii) (2003) 1 SCC 123, [E.Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (D) by LRs and others], and certain excerpts from it would run thus: