Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.40 seconds)The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 39 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
S.L. Kapur vs P.D. Lal on 28 February, 1975
"7. It is urged before us by learned Counsel for the
appellant that Section 14(1)(a) of the Act
contemplates the payment or tender of the whole of
the arrears of rent legally recoverable from the
tenant on the date when the demand notice is sent
including the rent which has accrued after service of
the demand notice. When the notice was sent on 7
May 1976, rent for the months of April and May
1976 had become due, and as two months was given
for payment of the arrears, it would include also the
rent which had accrued during the said period of two
months. We are not satisfied that there is substance
in the contention. The arrears of rent envisaged by
Section 14(1)(a) of the Act are the arrears demanded
by the notice for payment of arrears of rent. The
arrears due cannot be extended to rent which has
fallen due after service of the notice of demand. In
this case, the two bank drafts representing the arrears
of rent covered by the notice of demand had been
tendered within two months of the date of service of
the notice of demand. The High Court is right in the
view taken by it. We are not satisfied that the
construction placed by B. C. Misra, J. in Jag Ram
Nathu Ram v. Surinder Kumar S.A.O. No. 52 of
1975 decided on 28 April, 1976 (Del) and in S.L
Kapur v. Dr. Mrs. P. D. Lal, 1975 Ren C.J. 322
(Del) lays down the correct law on the point."
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
M/S Rattan Lal Ram Kumar & Anr vs Maman Chand on 27 April, 2012
16. Regarding the plea of the respondent about non-maintainability of the
present petition, a reference may be had to the judgment of this court in the
case of M/s. Rattan Lal Ram Kumar & Anr. vs. Maman Chand,
MANU/DE/2856/2012 where this court has noted that the controversy is
settled and the second appeals which were filed under Section 39 of the
erstwhile DRC Act were directed to be converted into petitions under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no merit in the plea of the
respondent that the present petition would not lie.
Smt. Prakash Mehra vs K.L. Malhotra on 27 April, 1989
In this context reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Parkash Mehra v. K.L. Malhotra AIR 1989 SC 1652.
That was a case in which the respondent-tenant received a notice on
07.05.1976 calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent. The rent had been
received upto 31st of March 1976 and therefore when the notice of demand
was served upon the respondent, rent for the months of April and May 1976
were due. The Supreme Court held as follows:
1