Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954
In the present case, the appellant is seeking to avail
the benefit of the legal fiction under Section 19-A(4) of
the Act. It is settled law that a legal fiction is to be
limited to the purpose for which it is created and should
not be extended beyond that legitimate field. [See : The
Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar &
Ors., 1955 (2) SCR 603 at p. 646]. The appellant can avail
the benefit of Section 19-A(4) if the deposit of Rs.3,600/-
made by him in the Court of Munsiff (South), Udaipur, on
October 29, 1982, by way of rent for the months of May, 1982
to October, 1982, can be treated as a payment under Section
19-A (3)(C) so as to enable the appellant to say that he was
not in default in payment of rent. Under Section 19-A(3)(c)
the tenant can deposit the rent in the Court only if the
conditions laid down in the said provision are satisfied. It
is the admitted case of the appellant that these conditions
are not satisfied in the present case. The deposit which was
made by the respondent in Court on October 29, 1982 cannot,
therefore, be regarded as a deposit made in accordance with
clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 19-A and the
appellant cannot avail the protection of Sub-section (4) of
Section 19-A and he must be held to have committed default
in payment of rent for the months of May, 1982 to October,
1982. This means that the decree for eviction has been
rightly passed against the appellant on account of default
in payment of rent for the period of six months.
Duli Chand vs Maman Chand (Dead) By Lrs. on 27 March, 1979
Shri Sachar does not dispute that the conditions
prescribed in clause (c) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 19-A
for the purpose of making the deposit in court are not
fulfilled in the present case. The submission of Shri
Sachar, however, is that since the appellant had deposited
in court the rent for the months of May, 1982 to October,
1982 on 29th October, 1982, before the said rent for six
months fell due, he cannot be held to be a defaulter in
payment of rent for six months and a decree for eviction
under Section 13 (1) (a) could not be passed. Shri Sachar
has, in this connection, placed reliance on the decisions of
this Court in Duli Chand vs. Maman Chand 1980(1) S.C.C. 246
and Sheo Narain vs. Sher Singh 1980 (1) S.C.R.836.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
Section 13 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sheo Narain vs Sher Singh on 21 September, 1979
Shri Sachar does not dispute that the conditions
prescribed in clause (c) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 19-A
for the purpose of making the deposit in court are not
fulfilled in the present case. The submission of Shri
Sachar, however, is that since the appellant had deposited
in court the rent for the months of May, 1982 to October,
1982 on 29th October, 1982, before the said rent for six
months fell due, he cannot be held to be a defaulter in
payment of rent for six months and a decree for eviction
under Section 13 (1) (a) could not be passed. Shri Sachar
has, in this connection, placed reliance on the decisions of
this Court in Duli Chand vs. Maman Chand 1980(1) S.C.C. 246
and Sheo Narain vs. Sher Singh 1980 (1) S.C.R.836.
1