Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)
Dina Nath (D) By Lrs. vs Subhash Chand Saini on 24 September, 2019 cites

Santosh Mehta vs Om Prakash And Anr on 2 April, 1980

18. While interpreting Section 15(7) of Act 1958, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in Miss. Santosh Mehta Vs. Om Prakash and Ors.2 held that the power to strike out a party’s defence is an exceptional step and has only to be exercised where a “mood of defiance” and “gross negligence” on the part of the tenant is detected. This Court warned against the landlord using Section 15(7) as a “booby trap” to get the tenant evicted. It would be better to reproduce the passage which indicate the approach which has to be adopted in such matters by the Court. The relevant paras 3 & 4 are as under:­ “3. We must adopt a socially informed perspective while construing the provisions and then it will be plain that the Controller is armed with a facultative power. He may, or may not strike out the tenant's defence. A judicial discretion has built­in­self­restraint, has the scheme of the statute in mind, cannot ignore the conspectus of circumstances which are present in the case and has the brooding thought playing on the power that, in a court, striking out a party's defence is an exceptional step, not a routine visitation of a punitive extreme following upon a mere failure to pay rent. First of all, there must be a failure to pay rent which, in the context, indicates wilful failure, deliberate default or volitional non­ performance. Secondly, the section provides no automatic weapon but prescribes a wise discretion, inscribes no mechanical consequence but invests a power to overcome intransigence. Thus, if a tenant fails or refuses to pay or deposit rent and the court discerns a mood of defiance or gross neglect, the tenant may forfeit his right to be heard in defence. The last resort cannot be converted into the first 2 1980(3) SCC 610 12 resort; a punitive direction of court cannot be used as a booby trap to get the tenant out. Once this teleological interpretation dawns, the mist of misconception about matter­of­course invocation of the power to strike out will vanish. Farewell to the realities of a given case is playing truant with the duty underlying the power.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 81 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Ashoka Marketing Ltd. And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Punjab National Bank And Ors. Etc. Etc on 7 August, 1990

11. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act, 1958 fell for consideration before the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.1, wherein this Court held that the purpose of the Act, inter alia, is to give the tenants a larger measure of protection against eviction. This Court observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 93 - Cited by 530 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 Next