Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.83 seconds)Section 26 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
Section 3 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Chimanlal vs Mishrilal on 12 November, 1984
(10) Learned counsel next refers to Chimanlal v. Mishirilal . where the specific dispute was about the extent of the premises let out to the tenant. The notice did not relate to the entire accommodation let to the tenant but only with respect to a portion of it. The premises according to the tenant consisted of the entire shop, verandah and the court yard but the notice pertained to a portion of a shop and a verandah. Under these circumstances it was held that the notice demanding rent was invalid. In the instant case there is no dispute about the extent of the preimses, rate of rent or the period for which rent was due. No ground of invalidity of notice has been pleaded. The only plea in the written statement is that no notice of demand has been served. This judgment does not favor the appellants.
Section 39 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Damadilal And Others vs Parashram And Others on 7 May, 1976
(15) Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the cheques dated 27th May, 1977 and 16th March, 1978 sent to the respondent No. 1 were legal tender. Respondent No. 1 on the other hand submits that the cheque was not a legal tender, that there has been previous litigation and he never accepted the cheque from the appellants. He further submits that in this case also when the cheque dated l6th March, 1978 was received by him Along with letter dated 20th March, 1978 it was returned to the appellants Along with letter dated 27th March, 1978 (Ex. A. 5) wherein he has informed that it was not a legal tender and it was not acceptable to him. In other words the landlord never accepted any cheque from the appellants towards payment of rent. It is admitted that the appellants were in arrears from 1st June, 1971 anA,tbe landlord had previously filed an eviction application against them on ground of non-payment of rent where an order under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed and the eviction petition was dismissed giving benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act to the appellants. There is no evidence on record that at any time the respondent-landlord accepted any cheque towards payment of rent. Thus it would mean that the cheque was never accepted as a legal tender by him. Learned counsel for the appellants refers to Damadilal and others v. Parashram and others, Mr 1976 S.C. 2229 where in it has been observed that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary a cheque sent by the tenant to a landlord towards payment of arrears of rent is a valid tender. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down but in the present case the landlord was never inclined to accept the cheque for payment of rent and it was for this reason that the cheque received by him was returned on 27th March, 1978 (Ex. A. 5). Thus in the present case it must be held that the cheque sent in March, 1978 was not a legal tender and it did not cover the whole of the arrears of rent. It is admitted on record that the rent from 1st November, 1976 has not been paid by the appellants.
T.D.Gopalan vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & ... on 5 April, 1966
(18) In T. D. Gopalan v. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, AlR 1972 S.C. 1716 it has been observed as under; "We apprehend that the uniform practice in the matter of appreciation of evidence has been that if the trial court has given cogent and detailed reasons for no.t accepting the testimony of a witness the appellate court in all fairness to it ought to deal with those reasons before proceeding to form a contrary opinion about accepting the testimony which has been rejected by the trial court." I may also mention that the evidence in this case was recorded by the same judicial officer who has given the judgment as Additional Rent Controller. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Rent Control Tribunal by disregarding the law laid down by the Supreme Court has wrongly held that the cheque dated 27th May, 1977 was sent by the appellants to respondent No. 1.