Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
Bhagirthi Devi vs Premnath And Ors. on 11 September, 1970 cites

Hakim Sardar Bahadur vs Tej Parkash Singh on 16 March, 1962

The previous decision of Falshaw CJ. in Hakim Sardar Bahadur v. Shri Tej Parkash Singh (1962 Plr 538 was also referred to. Observing that the principle of suspension of lent has been accepted to a great extent in India, but with modification, Falshaw CJ. observed that in a case where the landlord tortiously deprives a tenant of the use of a part of the demised premises, so long as the deprivation continues the landlord cannot even claim the rent for the rest of the premises which the tenant still continues to occupy. The decisions discussed above, both of the Privy Council and some of the Calcutta High Court, were considered. Generally the said doctrine of suspension of payment of rent had been upheld in cases of eviction from some part of the premises but there was a modification of that doctrine in cases of no delivery.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Meenakshi Sundara Nachiar vs Sa. Rm. Ct. Chidambaram Chetty And Ors. on 15 April, 1912

(12) A Division Bench of the Madras High Court dealt with this doctrine in Meenakshi Sundara Nachiar v. S.A. RM. CH. Chidambaram Chetty (15 Indian Cases 711. After observing that "the Transfer of Property Act did not in reality deal with the question of the lessee's right to withhold the payment of the whole or part of the rent, where his possession of the premises has been seriously obstructed by the landlord", the' Division Bench held that "the Act had made no change in the rule that no delivery of possession of the premises was a good answer to a suit for rent". "The basis of the defense, where the Lesser had obstructed the lessee's enjoyment", explained the Division Bench, "is that in cases of continuous relationship involving mutual rights and obligations, a party who repudiates and acts in violation of his obligations cannot claim to enforce his own rights against the other party". If after putting the tenant in possession of the property leased, the landlord obstructed his enjoyment of the portion thereof, it was open to the tenant to say that he was not willing to enjoy a portion of the premises, paying proportionate rent, but would treat the whole lease as 'rescinded during the period of such obstruction; but, in that case, it was his duty to restore to the landlord the part of the premises still remaining in his occupation and not retain possession of it until he was again put in possession of the whole of the leased property. This was further explained by the Division Bench as being based upon the landlord's entitlement to rent for that portion either on the contract of lease or as compensation for use and occupation. In such cases the tenant was estopped from pleading that he was not liable for the rent of that portion.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Nilkantha Pati vs Kshitish Chandra Satpati And Ors. on 7 September, 1950

(10) The Supreme Court thus expressly left open the question whether the doctrine of suspension of payment of rent. could be applied to cases of eviction of the lessee by the Lesser from a part of the demised premises: The Calcutta High Court had occasion To consider this question again in Nilkantha Pati v Kshifish Chandra Satpati and others .R.P.Mookerjee, J., speaking to: the Division Bench, distinguishing the above said decision of the judicial Committee in Ram Lal Dutt observed that where the rent was a lump rent for the whole land leased and the landlord has dispossessed the tenant in a high handed manner from a portion of the land, the landlord is not entitled to claim any rent on the basis of the contract with the tenant, as the former has acted tortiously in not allowing the tenant to hold the land peacefully.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Srimati Katyani Devi vs Uday Kumar Das on 31 May, 1921

)A relinquishment made in favor of a landlord by one of two or more tenants was held valid for the purpose of affecting the share of that tenante Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which had occasion to consider this doctrine of suspension of payment of rent in Sm.KatyayaniDebi v. Udoy Kumar Das , applied the same to a case where there was a lump rent for the whole land leased and the same was treated as an indivisible Subject.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Dhirendra Nath Sen And Ors. vs Santa Shila Devi And Ors. on 14 September, 1967

(7) Dhirendra Nath Roy and others v. Bhahatarini Devi and others Page and Mallik JJ. held that when the tenancy was indivisible providing for a lump sum rent to be paid for the whole of the demised premises it was not open to the landlady to claim any portion of the rent when he interferes with the due enjoyment of the premises or any part thereof by his tenants by evicting them there from.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1