Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)
Tasarruf Husain (Since Deceased) ... vs Khalid Rehman & Others Page 1 Of 21 Pages on 3 June, 2020 cites

Manmohan Chawla vs Jaswant Singh Sethi on 24 January, 1969

25.In the case of Manmohan Chawla vs Jaswant Singh 1969 DLT 375, V. S. Deshpande, J. (as he then was) while considering the proviso to Section 14 (2) DRC Act, it was observed that Section was added by the Legislature because as it felt that there must be some limit to the remedy available to the tenant and he should not be allowed the benefit of depositing the arrears of rent and defeating the eviction proceedings ad­infinitum. It was observed that the proviso was applicable to both Section 14 (2) of DRC Act, as well as, to the relevant provisions of Section 15 (1) (3) (6).
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar vs Ram Gopal on 8 April, 1982

27.Likewise, in Ashok Kumar vs Ram Gopal 22 (1982) DLT 188, Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that the cause of action accrues and the provision of proviso to Section 14 (2) of DRC Act becomes applicable the moment there is a default committed on the part of the tenant in not making the payment pursuant to the receipt of the notice of demand. If the entire arrears of rent are not paid within two months of receipt of notice, then the tenant becomes liable for eviction.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

E. Palanisamy vs Palanisamy (D) By Lrs & Ors on 31 October, 2002

29.In E. Palanisamy vs Palanisamy (2003) 1 SCC 123 while considering similar provisions under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, it was observed that where landlord refuses to accept the rent tendered by money order, the tenant is entitled to deposit rent before the Rent Controller. It was further observed that benefit conferred on the tenant can be enjoyed only by strict compliance with the statutory provisions. Equitable consideration has no place in such matters. A strict compliance with statue is necessary. The tenant cannot straight away jump to the last step i.e. deposit rent in court. The last step can only be after the earlier steps have been taken by the tenant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 168 - A Kumar - Full Document

Sh. Mohd. Abid vs Smt. Kausar Parveen on 25 November, 2014

33.The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mohd. Abid Vs. Kausar Parveen C.M (M) No.1271/2013 decided on 25.11.2014 referred to the judgment of Sarla Goel (supra) and concluded that in case of refusal of rent by the landlord, the procedure to be followed is dealt under Section 27 and in case the mandatory provision of procedure as prescribed under Section 27 is not followed, then it has to be held that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 12 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1   2 Next