Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.21 seconds)
Modi Mohanlal Bhagwandas And Anr. vs Shah Keshavlal Jethalal on 3 March, 1967 cites

Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed vs Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai on 22 October, 1963

In my opinion, the said observations, on the contrary, go against the opponent's case. It indicates that where the tenant disputes the standard rent or permitted increases and finds it difficult to know exactly what amount he should deposit, he has to move the Court to fix the amount. So the tenant who desires to have protection or qualify for protection under Sub-section (3)(b), he has to be vigilent and take the steps of having the standard rent fixed by applying to the Court. If however, he does not do so and takes the risk of depositing the amount on his own calculation, he cannot then complain if it is ultimately established that he had not deposited the amount of standard rent and permitted increases due to the landlord. In the present case, the tenant did not have the amount fixed by the Court and deposited on his own, the amount which, as shown above, fell much below the required amount. The said observations, in my judgment, therefore do not help the tenant at all. Mr. Amin then urged that if this Court enhances the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, the tenant should be given an opportunity of depositing the amount and should not pass an order of ejecting the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and permitted increases till such opportunity is given and the tenant fails to deposit the amount. Reliance was placed on the following observations in the same paragraph of the said decision of the Supreme Court:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 95 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next