Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
On The Death Of Nopatrai Khemka His Legal ... vs Sabitri Devi Kejriwal & Anr on 21 April, 2016
9) The learned first appellate Court had revisited the pleadings and evidence on record
and on the basis of exhibits proved by the respondent. In respect of issues no. (II) and (III),
it was held that the petitioner had claimed that he had offered rent to the respondent for the
months of August, 2010 and September, 2010, but the respondent had declined to accept the
same, but the petitioner had failed to deposit rent in Court immediately after it was declined
by the respondent. In light of Misc. Case No. 483/11 (Ext.E), it was held that through the
official witness (DW-2), the respondent had proved deposit of rent in Court for July, 2010 to
November, 2011. In this regard, by referring to the provisions of Section 5(4) of the Assam
Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 it was held that only if landlord refuses to accept the
lawful rent offered by the tenant, only then a tenant may, within a fortnight of its falling due,
deposit the amount of rent in Court together with process fees for service of notice on the
landlord and on such deposit of rent, a tenant shall not be treated as a defaulter under
Clause (e) of Sub- Section (1) of section 5 of the Act. In light of the said provision of law, it
was held that the DW-1 (petitioner) had admitted that he had not deposited rent in Court
immediately after the respondent denied to receive rent from him. It was held that vide Ext.E,
the petitioner had proved that he had deposited an amount of Rs.23,800/- as rent for the
months of July, 2010 to November, 2011 in Court together for 17 months and it was held that
this evidence made it crystal clear that the petitioner had deposited rent in Court without
complying with due process of law for depositing rent in Court. Accordingly, on the strength
of ratio laid down in the case of (i) Sushila Devi Khemka Vs. Sabitri Devi Kejriwal, (2016) 5
Page No.# 6/11
GLJ 175, (ii) Nityananda Dutta Vs. Anisul Haque, 2008 (2) GLT 354 , and (iii) Rameswar
Choudhury Vs. Ram Niranjan More, (1995) Supp (3) SCC 44 , it was held that if rent is
deposited without tendering the same to the landlord, then the same is not a valid deposit
under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. Thus, the decision of
the learned trial Court was upheld and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the decree
for ejectment and recovery of arrear rent passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed.
The Managing Director (Mig) Hindustan ... vs Ajit Prasad Tarway on 5 November, 1971
In this regard, the case of The Managing Director, Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, AIR 1973 SC 73 may be referred to, wherein it was
held by the Supreme Court of India that High Court should not interfere even if the order is
right or wrong or in accordance with law or not, unless jurisdiction is exercised illegally or
with material irregularity. It is no longer res integra that simply because another view of the
evidence may be taken is no ground by the High Court to interfere in its revisional
jurisdiction.
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 5 in Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Hazi Mahmed Jafor vs Dr. Imran Hussain Choudhury on 12 April, 1982
12) There is no dispute with regard to the fact that under the provisions of Section 5(4) of
the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 it is provided that the lawful rent be tendered
by the tenant to the landlord before depositing the same in Court. This Court in Hazi Mahmed
Jafor v. Dr. Imran Hussain Choudhury, AIR 1983 Gau 92 , it was held that the tenant can claim
protection only upon fulfillment of pre-condition for deposit of rent under Section 5(4) of the
Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant paragraph
Page No.# 7/11
9 of the said case herein below:-
1