Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)
R. Narayanaswamy vs P.A. Abdul Majeed And 4 Ors. on 29 September, 1997 cites

Iqbal And Company, By Its Partner, A. ... vs Abdul Rahim on 26 November, 1981

In Shahul Hameed and 4 others v. Rasool Bivi, 1993 (2) LW 583 Justice Thanikkachalam as he then was has also expressed the same view, as we have found in the judgment of Justice S. Mohan as he then was in Iqbal and Company v. Abdul Rahim, 1982 (1) MLJ 221. Therefore, the cases are also not helpful to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that even though the decision by the appellate authority cannot be sustained on the reasons given by him it can be sustained on the ground that the tenant has not deposited the arrears of rent. The learned counsel cited the following decisions
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - S Mohan - Full Document

N.C.M. Ahmad Jamalia Beavi vs D. N. Shah on 30 July, 1997

In N.S.M. Ahmad Jamalia Beevi v. D.N. Shah, the Supreme Court depreciated the High Court for giving a second chance for depositing the entire arrear. When the matter came up before the High Court and additional order was passed by the High Court to deposit and on non-compliance the tenants plea was rejected and thereafter when the matter came up before High Court by way of execution proceeding the High Court Chose to give him further time to deposit the arrear. Only in those circumstances, Supreme Court held that the High Court has erred in granting time. The facts of the case are different. The Division Bench of this Court has considered the scope of the powers of the High Court in revision. Under Section 25, the powers of the High Court is equitable. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the expression "in doing so, the High Court has not considered whether the order of eviction passed is sustainable on the basis of any other grounds taken in the petition which form for the reliefs prayed for therein." Relying upon the said expression, the counsel wants me to sustain the order passed by the appellate authority. In view of the Bench decision mentioned above and the other two decisions following the same view, I am not in a position to agree with the counsel for the respondent. It is true that the scope of powers conferred under Section 25 is equitable. But that does not mean that when an order is passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority without jurisdiction, this Court an come to its rescue by sustaining it on some other ground.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Radha Kishan Sao vs Gopal Modi & Ors on 14 February, 1977

12. The first case Radha Kishan Sao v. Gopal Modi and Ors., 1977 RCJ 559 has arisen out of the Bihar Rent Control Act. As per the provisions contained in the said Act, if the tenants deposits the entire arrears at the first hearing, he will be absolved of the default and the petition for eviction would be rejected. Since according to the learned counsel, the petitioner has not paid the arrears no indulgence can be shown by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 15 - P K Goswami - Full Document

A.E.M Usoof And Sons vs O.M. Mohammed Ibrahim Represented By ... on 23 April, 1990

In A.E.M.Usoof & Sons, Madras v. O.M. Mohamed Ibrahim, rep. by General Power of Attorney Agency, 1990 (I) L.W 484. Justice Ratnam a he then was has also taken a similar view. In the said case in an eviction proceedings under Section 10(2)(i) an ex parte order of eviction was passed. The tenant preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlord filed petitions under Section 11(3) and 11(4) of the Act for deposit of the quantum of total arrears. This was allowed. Against that civil revision petition was filed.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next