Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)
Smt. Meena Sharma vs Shri Rajiv Kumar on 3 March, 2015 cites

Shyamcharan Sharma vs Dharamdas on 4 December, 1979

AIR 1984 SC 1392, was wrongly decided and reliance was wrongly placed in that case on the decision of a Bench of three Judges of this Court in the case of Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas, (1980) 2 SCC 151: AIR 1980 SC 587. In our view, Sub-section (7) of Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 gives a discretion to the Rent Controller and does not contain a mandatory provision for striking out the defence of the tenant against eviction. The Rent Controller may or may not pass an order striking out the defence. The exercise of this discretion will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If the Rent Controller is of the view that in the CM(M) 796/2014 & 797/2014 Page 10 of 15 facts of a particular case the time to make payment or deposit pursuant to an order passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 should be extended, he may do so by passing a suitable order. Similarly, if he is not satisfied about the case made out by the tenant, he may order the defence against eviction to be struck out. But, the power to strike out the defence against eviction is discretionary and must not be mechanically exercised without any application of mind to the facts of the case."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 69 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Shri Sanjay Kumar Saxena vs Smt. Meeta Govel on 15 October, 2004

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 5 th June, 2006 condoning the delay without any application seeking condonation of delay was an illegal order and further illegality was committed by the impugned orders of the learned ARC dated 7th September, 2013 and Rent Controller dated 24th July, 2014 when they did not consider the subsequent defaults made. Even if there was no direction by the Court to pay future rents the provision of Section 26 DRC Act was applicable and any delay in deposition of the money beyond 15th day of the proceeding month would CM(M) 796/2014 & 797/2014 Page 7 of 15 have given rise to a cause of action in favour of the petitioners amounting to subsequent defaults. Reliance is placed on Shanti Prasad Jain (D) Through Lrs. Vs. Prakash Narain Mathur 158 (2009) DLT 483(SC); Sanjay Kumar Saxena Vs. Smt. Meeta Govel 114 (2004) DLT 710; Ram Prakash Tewari Vs. Suraj Bhan Yadav 90 (2001) DLT 236 and Shri Manohar Lal (deceased) through LRs Vs. Prem Nath Gera (deceased) through LRs. CM(M) 638/2011 decided by this Court on 24th May, 2011.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 22 - R C Jain - Full Document
1   2 Next