Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)
N.Ramalingam vs Selvam on 5 October, 2012 cites

Maragathammal vs Kamalammal on 11 September, 2006

27. Moreover, the question whether the Rent Controller can extend the time for depositing the arrears of rent granted by the Appellate Authority or revision Court has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maragathammal Vs. Kamalammal reported in 2007-2-L.W.503. In the said caes an order under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was passed by the Rent Controller on 19.11.2005 directing the respondent herein/tenant to deposit the entire admitted arrears of rent in Court on or before 22.11.1995, failing compliance of which the tenant's defence would be struck off. The tenant therein stated to have filed a lodgment schedule on 21.11.1995 stating that he wanted to deposit the rent from the month of July 1992 onwards upto to October 1995 (covering 41 months). Lodgment schedule came to be considered and a challan was issued on 29.11.1995 for depositing the amount. The Rent Controller passed an order on 01.12.1995 holding that the tenant failed to deposit the admitted arrears in spite of ample opportunities, struck off the defence and passed an order of eviction in the R.C.O.P on 22.03.1996. As against the said order passed in 11(4) petition and the order of eviction passed in R.C.O.P, appeals were filed by the tenant in R.C.A.No.63 of 1997 and 66 of 1998. As the appeal against the eviction order was beyond the period of limitation, an interlocutory application to condone the said delay was filed. In the said application to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the Appellate Authority directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent from June 1992 to July 1997 on or before 16.07.1997. Such an order came to be passed on 08.07.1997. Accordingly, the amount was also deposited on 14.07.1997. Thereafter, the appeals came to be numbered and they were disposed of by a common order dated 04.07.2000 holding that the tenant was not showing due diligence to discharge her liability in payment of rent and the arrears of rent was not deposited within time. In a revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, the Supreme Court reversed the said judgment of the Appellate Authority, set aside the order of eviction passed under Section 11(4) of the Act, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. In the said case, it was pointed out that the tenant waited till the eve of the last day for the deposit of the amount and on a day before the last day of the time granted by the Court for deposit, filed a lodgment schedule expressing her intention to deposit the rent for the month of June 1992 onwards upto October 1995. As she had waited till the eve of the last day for filing the lodgment schedule, the Supreme Court held that there was no bonafide on the part of the tenant therein; that therefore, the orders striking off the defence and directing eviction of the tenant for non-compliance with the conditional order was justifiable and that the interference by the High Court in the said case was unwarranted. Accordingly, the Supreme Court in the said case set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. However, the Supreme Court granted two months time to the tenant to vacate the premises.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 16 - M Katju - Full Document

Kamal Kanwar Bafna And Premchand Bafna vs R.G. Trading Co., Rep. By Its Proprietor ... on 25 April, 2002

19. The order of the High Court relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent and referred to in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller is one made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kamal Kanwar Bafna and another Vs. R.G.Trading Co., represented by its Proprietor R.G.Mohta, Chennai reported in (2002) 2 MLJ 514. The ratio decided therein, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, shall not be applicable to the case on hand. In the said order relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, the order passed by the Rent Controller directing payment / deposit of the arrears of the rent within the time fixed by the Rent Controller was stayed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Thereafter, on revision also, the Appellate Authority's order came to be confirmed. There is no indication in the said order whether the Appellate Authority, at the time of disposal of the appeal and the High Court, at the time of disposal of the revision, fixed any time for complying with the direction issued by the Rent Controller. From a reading of the said judgment, it can be inferred that time for complying with the condition had been fixed by the Rent Controller and it remained suspended during the pendency of the appeal by grant of stay by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and though no interim order came to be passed in the revision, while dismissing the revision, the High Court did not fix any time for complying with the condition requiring deposit of arrears of rent. The same was the reason for this Court in the other case to hold that the time stipulated in the order of the Rent Controller became meaningless as it stood suspended during the pendency of the appeal and this Court held that after the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition by the High Court, the Rent Controller was justified in passing an order extending the time for deposit as per the direction issued by the Rent Controller in the original order.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1