Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.30 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 12 in Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
R.C. Tamrakar And Anr vs Nidi Lekha on 16 October, 2001
18. Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel has also referred
to the decisions of the apex court in Prativa Devi vs. T.V.
Krishnan reported in (1996) 5 SCC 353, R.C. Tamrakar
vs. Nidi Lekha reported in (2001) 8 SCC 431, Ram Nath
vs. Rajender Pershad reported in (2003) 12 SCC 127,
Mohd. Ayub and Anr. vs. Mukesh Chand reported in AIR
2012 SC 881.
Mohd. Ayub & Anr vs Mukesh Chand on 5 January, 2012
In Mohd. Ayub (supra) the apex court has
observed as follows:
Sarla Goel & Ors vs Kishan Chand on 8 July, 2009
In Sarala Goel (supra) in
particular, the apex court has affirmed the law as decided in
Atma Ram vs. Shakuntala Rani reported in (2005) 7 SCC
211 where the apex court has held that if the tenant wishes
to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he
must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. If any
condition-precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can
be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he
Page 15 of 28
fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit
conferred by such a provision. This has been commented
upon in the background of the default in payment of the
rent.
Atma Ram vs Shakuntala Rani on 30 August, 2005
In Sarala Goel (supra) in
particular, the apex court has affirmed the law as decided in
Atma Ram vs. Shakuntala Rani reported in (2005) 7 SCC
211 where the apex court has held that if the tenant wishes
to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he
must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. If any
condition-precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can
be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he
Page 15 of 28
fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit
conferred by such a provision. This has been commented
upon in the background of the default in payment of the
rent.
Raptakos Brett And Co. Ltd vs Ganesh Property on 8 September, 1998
21. On reading of the said decision this court has
failed to understand why this decision has been relied by Mr.
Chowdhury, learned counsel in this context. Apparent it is
that in the present petition, this court has not been called
upon to give meaning of any covenant or the ambit and
scope of Section-69 of the Indian Partnership Act. The other
aspect, dwelled upon there by the apex court, does not have
even remote connection with the present controversy.