Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Section 11 in The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Shah Dhansukhlal Chhaganlal vs Dalichand Virchand Shroff And Others on 1 March, 1968
The Apex Court on thorough analysis of the Abbasbhai 's case (supra) and another decision of the Apex Court in Dhansukhlal Chhaganlal v. Dalichand Virchand Shroff , held that tenant can only be considered to be ready and willing to pay if before the expiry t of the period of one month after notice referred in Sub-section (2) makes an application to the Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 and thereafter pays or tenders the amount of rent or permitted increase specified by the Court. The Court held thus: "The tenant can claim protection from the operation of Section 12(3)(a) of the Act only if the tenant makes an application within one month of the notice terminating the tenancy by raising a dispute as to the standard rent."
Chunilal Shivlal (By His General ... vs Chimanlal Nagindas on 10 August, 1966
On a reference the Division Bench of This Court in Chunilal Shivlal v. Chimanlal reported (1966) VII G.L.R. 945, held that the observation of the Supreme Court in Vora Abbasbhai's case (supra) cannot be regarded as having the effect of overriding the decision in Ambalal's case (supra).
Firm Of Harbanslal Jagmohandas & Anr vs Prabhudas Shivlal on 16 April, 1971
So far as this question is concerned, the Apex Court following earlier judgment in Harbanslal Jagmohandas's case (supra) has upheld the view of the Gujarat High Court that tenant on receipt of the notice from the landlord claiming arrears of rent and also permitted increase unless dispute the same within one month from the date of receipt of the notice is not entitled to claim the benefit under Section 12(3) of the Act. On analysing the material provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act the Court held thus:
Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Shah Ambalal Chhotalal And Ors. vs Shah Babaldas Dayabhai And Ors. on 12 April, 1962
In Ambalal's case (supra) This Court has said that the word "may" used in Sub-Section 3(a) of Section 12 in its context should be read as "shall". As the instant case falls within the four corners of Section 12(3)(a) and not Section 12(1) there is no alternative but to pass decree for eviction of suit premises.
Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed vs Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai on 22 October, 1963
The Apex Court on thorough analysis of the Abbasbhai 's case (supra) and another decision of the Apex Court in Dhansukhlal Chhaganlal v. Dalichand Virchand Shroff , held that tenant can only be considered to be ready and willing to pay if before the expiry t of the period of one month after notice referred in Sub-section (2) makes an application to the Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 and thereafter pays or tenders the amount of rent or permitted increase specified by the Court. The Court held thus: "The tenant can claim protection from the operation of Section 12(3)(a) of the Act only if the tenant makes an application within one month of the notice terminating the tenancy by raising a dispute as to the standard rent."