Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)
K.Venkatesan vs E.Hemantharaj on 20 October, 2016 cites

Maragathammal vs Kamalammal on 11 September, 2006

10 This conduct of the Tenant in purchasing the Demand Drafts at an earlier point of time and presented Demand Drafts later, will only reflect that the Tenant is a chronic defaulter and he is not interested in paying rent regularly and his conduct is nothing but wilful. Therefore, according to me, the Tenant does not deserve any sympathy and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Maragathammal v. Kamalammal, (2006) 8 SCC 152, that when the Tenant has committed default in presentation of Lodgment Schedule by one day, Tenant is liable to be vacated and in this case, Tenant has committed default for six months in the payment of rent even during the pendency of the proceedings, he did not pay the rents regularly and therefore, the conduct of the Revision Petitioner is wilful and on that ground, these Revisions are liable to be dismissed. From the above, one can understand that this Court has taken a very strong view about the conduct of the Petitioner that the Petitioner does not deserve any sympathy and the Order of Eviction passed by the Court below should not be interfered with. When this, Court confirmed the Order of Eviction by dismissing the CRP filed by the Petitioner. There is nothing to be decided by way of Section 47-Petition before the Rent Controller. The procedure adopted by the Petitioner is something unknown in law. The Order passed by this Court has sought to be nullified by way of Section 47-Petition before the learned Rent Controller. If this is accepted, it would amount to destroying the very heirarchy of the institution itself. Every party, who gets adverse order which is confirmed by the highest Court of the State or Country, would casually challenge the same by approaching the lowest forum. It is a clear case of misuse and abuse process of law and an attempt to damage the image of the Court and this Court cannot be a spectator to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 16 - M Katju - Full Document
1