Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.50 seconds)
Shri Vinod Kumar Gosalia vs Shri Frank Silva Lobo Norton on 22 November, 1983 cites

Khadi Gram Udyog Trust vs Shri Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir ... on 28 November, 1977

Mr. Usgaoncar, as already said, has contended that no sound reason exists to treat differently the two situations, since if no eviction proceedings can lie in the event the tenant pays the rents which are legally recoverable even if he owes to the landlord rent much beyond the period of limitation, then there is no sound reason to force a tenant to deposit all the rents due only for the purpose of resisting or defending an eviction proceedings instituted against him. The argument may appear to be correct and is to some extent enticing. However, on a deeper reading and consideration of the relevant provisions of the law, it would appear that the contention of Mr. Usgaoncar cannot be accepted. First of all, as observed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Khadi Gram Udyog Trust v. Shri Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir (supra), there is ample authority for the proposition that though a debt is time barred, it will be a debt due though not recoverable, the relief being barred by limitation. It has been further observed that in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edn.) Vol. 24 at page 205, Article 369, it has been stated that except in the cases previously mentioned, the Limitation Act, 1939 only takes away the remedies by action or by set off; it leaves the right otherwise untouched and if a creditor whose debt is statute-barred has any means of enforcing his claim other than by action or setoff, the Act docs not prevent him from recovering by those means.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 42 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Smt. Mankunwar Bai And Ors. vs Sunderlal Jain on 14 February, 1978

However, the aforesaid rulings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court are based entirely on the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act, It is, therefore, expedient to advert to the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Section 12(l)(a) of the said Act provides that no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except inter alia when the tenant has not paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 lays down that no order for eviction of a tenant shall be made on the ground specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by Section 13 and Section 13(1) provides that on a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the ground referred to in Section 12, the tenant shall, within one month of the service of writ of summons on him or within such further time as the Court may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf, deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made; and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. It was in the context of the aforesaid provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act that the aforesaid High Court has held in the case of Mankunwar Bai v. Sunderlal Jain (supra) that under Section 13(1) of the said Act it is not necessary for the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit in Court the amount of arrears of rent, the recovery of which has been barred by limitation and, as such, irrecoverable by the landlord. The reason for so holding was that Section 13(1) has been enacted to afford to the tenant a further opportunity to pay arrears of rent, although he has committed default when the notice of demand was served on him. Now, it is to be noted that the provision similar to some extent to that section of the Madhya Pradesh Act has been introduced by way of the amendment in our Act. The said provision is Sub-section (3). However, while considering all the aspects of the case, as already observed, the legislature, while introducing in Sub-section (2) (a) in the amended Section 22(2) (a) of the Act the expression "legally recoverable", has deliberately omitted such expression in the new Sub-section (3) and has used the expression "rent due". This being so, it appears manifest that the legislature, while intending to give a fresh opportunity to the tenant to avoid his eviction, nevertheless did not intend to enlarge the benefit to the extent of making him free to pay only the legally recoverable rent. On the contrary, it appears that the legislature intended to cause the tenant to pay a price for the fresh opportunity given to him to avoid his eviction, and the price was to deposit or pay all the rents which were due by him.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

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

8. Irrespective of this aspect of the case, it is to be mentioned that also on a different ground this petition is bound to fail. In fact, the Rent Controller has clearly observed in the impugned order that the petitioners had not shown that they have deposited the rents due for the period commencing in July, 1971 to May, 1973 and also that they have not regularly deposited the rents for the months subsequent to the filing of the eviction proceedings, and further that me petitioners had not offered any explanation for such failure. In the same manner, the Administrative Tribunal has observed in para 7 of the impugned judgment that the respondents herein had contended that the petitioners had not paid the rents from October,. 1978 to February, 1979 and that, though the petitioners had contended that such rents except for the month of October, 1978 had been paid, the records of the Tribunal and the Rent Controller were not proving such payments. In addition, it was observed that the rents for January and February, 1979 had been paid only on March 30, 1979, thus belatedly, and without sufficient cause having been shown. This ground alone justifies entirely an order of eviction under Section 32(4) of the Act. It has been however, urged by Mr. Usgaoncar, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Miss Santosh Mehta v. Om Prakash that a punitive action can be taken only in case it is shown that the tenant acts inter alia, with a mood of defiance or gross neglect and that such neglect or defiance cannot be found in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 81 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1