Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.35 seconds)
Ms Rathore Trading Co vs Smt Harminder Kaur on 23 April, 2010 cites

Chander Kali Bai & Ors vs Jagdish Singh Thakur on 6 October, 1977

17. On a careful reading and upon harmonious application of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Smt. Chander Kali Bail and others vs. Jagdish Singh Thakur and another (supra) and Hasmat Rai and another vs. Raghunath Prasad (supra), it appears to this Court that the possession of a tenant in the suit premises becomes unauthorised or wrongful when a decree is made which is subject to the final adjudication of his appeal and as long as the appeal preferred by the tenant against the decree of eviction is pending, he remains a tenant as defined under the Act, 1961 and as such his possession in the tenanted premises does not become unauthorised or wrongful. Thus, if the possession is not unauthorised or wrongful, a tenant is not liable to pay mesne profit or any other sum by whatever name called, over and above the agreed rent. Mesne profit is always awarded as damages for wrongful occupation of the premises by the defendant. If the tenant, even after passing of the decree of eviction, remains a tenant as defined under the Act, 1961 and his possession is not unlawful or unauthorised during pendency of the appeal, it cannot be said that he is liable to pay mesne profit. The second substantial question of law is, thus, answered in favour of the appellant and it is held that the decree regarding mesne profit is not legally sustainable. It is held that the tenant is only liable to pay agreed rent during the pendency of the suit of the plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 66 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Raptakos Brett And Co. Ltd vs Ganesh Property on 8 September, 1998

In the present case also, the plaintiff is enforcing its statutory right under the Act, 1961, wherein it is provided under Section 12 that notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or usages a tenant cannot be evicted from a premises unless the plaintiff succeeds in proving one or the other ground mentioned in clauses (a) to (p) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961. The right to evict a tenant under the Act, 1961 is, thus, a statutory right, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property (supra) followed in Haldiram Bhujiawala and another vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and another (supra) and followed and reiterated in Purushottam and another vs. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and others, 2007 JT Vol.4 564, this Court holds that the present suit preferred by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant is not barred under Section 69(2) of the Act, 1932 even though the plaintiff is a partner of an unregistered partnership firm and more so because in the present case the accommodation is neither owned by the partnership firm nor it is the landlord nor the firm has filed the suit for eviction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 369 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Hasmat Rai & Anr vs Raghunath Prasad on 28 April, 1981

17. On a careful reading and upon harmonious application of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Smt. Chander Kali Bail and others vs. Jagdish Singh Thakur and another (supra) and Hasmat Rai and another vs. Raghunath Prasad (supra), it appears to this Court that the possession of a tenant in the suit premises becomes unauthorised or wrongful when a decree is made which is subject to the final adjudication of his appeal and as long as the appeal preferred by the tenant against the decree of eviction is pending, he remains a tenant as defined under the Act, 1961 and as such his possession in the tenanted premises does not become unauthorised or wrongful. Thus, if the possession is not unauthorised or wrongful, a tenant is not liable to pay mesne profit or any other sum by whatever name called, over and above the agreed rent. Mesne profit is always awarded as damages for wrongful occupation of the premises by the defendant. If the tenant, even after passing of the decree of eviction, remains a tenant as defined under the Act, 1961 and his possession is not unlawful or unauthorised during pendency of the appeal, it cannot be said that he is liable to pay mesne profit. The second substantial question of law is, thus, answered in favour of the appellant and it is held that the decree regarding mesne profit is not legally sustainable. It is held that the tenant is only liable to pay agreed rent during the pendency of the suit of the plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 280 - D A Desai - Full Document

Haldiram Bhujiawala And Anr vs Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar And Anr on 28 February, 2000

In the present case also, the plaintiff is enforcing its statutory right under the Act, 1961, wherein it is provided under Section 12 that notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or usages a tenant cannot be evicted from a premises unless the plaintiff succeeds in proving one or the other ground mentioned in clauses (a) to (p) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961. The right to evict a tenant under the Act, 1961 is, thus, a statutory right, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property (supra) followed in Haldiram Bhujiawala and another vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and another (supra) and followed and reiterated in Purushottam and another vs. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and others, 2007 JT Vol.4 564, this Court holds that the present suit preferred by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant is not barred under Section 69(2) of the Act, 1932 even though the plaintiff is a partner of an unregistered partnership firm and more so because in the present case the accommodation is neither owned by the partnership firm nor it is the landlord nor the firm has filed the suit for eviction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 108 - M J Rao - Full Document

Damadilal And Others vs Parashram And Others on 7 May, 1976

In Smt. Chander Kali Bail and others vs. Jagdish Singh Thakur and another (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph 8, after referring to Damadilal and others vs. Parashram and others, AIR 1976 SC 2229, has held that if a suit is filed on the ground of non-payment of rent after termination of the contractual tenancy, the tenant still continues to be a tenant liable to pay rent not only for the past period but in future also and further that in absence of a decree of eviction the person in occupation of the accommodation continues to be a tenant and is not liable to pay any damages as his occupation is not unauthorised or wrongful even after the termination of the contractual tenancy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 140 - A C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next