Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.40 seconds)Kuldeep Singh vs Ganpat Lal & Anr on 5 December, 1995
(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
29.10.1982 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 of 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."
Mr.Bhaskar vs J. Venkatarama Naidu,Rep. By His Power ... on 10 September, 1996
Again in M. Bhaskar v. J. Venkatarama Naidu, (supra) with
reference to similar provisions contained in the A.P. Buildings (Lease,
Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, this Court observed that when the
landlord is evading payment of rent, the tenant has to follow the procedure
prescribed under Section 8 of the Act i.e. to issue notice to the landlord to
name the Bank and if he does not name the Bank, the tenant has to file
application before the Rent Controller for permission to deposit rent. The
tenant did not follow that procedure. Omission to avail of the prescribed
procedure disentitles the tenant to plead that there was no willful default
on his part. The landlord was, therefore, entitled to seek eviction on the
ground of willful default in payment of rent on the part of the tenant.
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent And Eviction) Control Act, 1960
1