Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)
Bajranglal And Anr. vs Ramdeo And Anr. on 12 November, 1987 cites

Ishwar Singh Bindra & Ors vs The State Of U.P on 2 May, 1968

4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that it is well proved from the findings recorded by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned lower appellate court that no amount of rent was due for six months, the provisions of Section 13(1)(a)of the Act are not attracted in any case, mere defaults in payment of rent of different six or more months do not attract the provisions of this clause and this clause simply requires that an amount of rent should remain due for six or more months. He further contended that the defendants validly deposited the amounts of rent in the court after the money orders were refused by the respondents, it was not necessary for them to send written notices under Section 19-A(3)(b) of the Act requiring their landlords to specify the bank and the account number and Section 13(1)(a) has to be read with Section 19-A(4) of the Act. He also contended that the word 'AND' appearing in clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 19-A should be read as 'OR' otherwise the object of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 would be frustrated. He relied upon Martin & Harris (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand 1974 RLW 115 (FB); Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P. , Khemka & Co. v. State of Maharashtra and Girdhari Lal and Sons v. Babir Nath .
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 391 - A N Grover - Full Document

Khemka & Co vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 February, 1975

4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that it is well proved from the findings recorded by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned lower appellate court that no amount of rent was due for six months, the provisions of Section 13(1)(a)of the Act are not attracted in any case, mere defaults in payment of rent of different six or more months do not attract the provisions of this clause and this clause simply requires that an amount of rent should remain due for six or more months. He further contended that the defendants validly deposited the amounts of rent in the court after the money orders were refused by the respondents, it was not necessary for them to send written notices under Section 19-A(3)(b) of the Act requiring their landlords to specify the bank and the account number and Section 13(1)(a) has to be read with Section 19-A(4) of the Act. He also contended that the word 'AND' appearing in clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 19-A should be read as 'OR' otherwise the object of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 would be frustrated. He relied upon Martin & Harris (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand 1974 RLW 115 (FB); Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P. , Khemka & Co. v. State of Maharashtra and Girdhari Lal and Sons v. Babir Nath .
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 31 - A N Ray - Full Document

Girdhari Lal & Sons vs Balbir Nath Mathur & Ors on 26 February, 1986

4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that it is well proved from the findings recorded by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned lower appellate court that no amount of rent was due for six months, the provisions of Section 13(1)(a)of the Act are not attracted in any case, mere defaults in payment of rent of different six or more months do not attract the provisions of this clause and this clause simply requires that an amount of rent should remain due for six or more months. He further contended that the defendants validly deposited the amounts of rent in the court after the money orders were refused by the respondents, it was not necessary for them to send written notices under Section 19-A(3)(b) of the Act requiring their landlords to specify the bank and the account number and Section 13(1)(a) has to be read with Section 19-A(4) of the Act. He also contended that the word 'AND' appearing in clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 19-A should be read as 'OR' otherwise the object of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 would be frustrated. He relied upon Martin & Harris (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand 1974 RLW 115 (FB); Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P. , Khemka & Co. v. State of Maharashtra and Girdhari Lal and Sons v. Babir Nath .
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 114 - O C Reddy - Full Document

R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla vs The Union Of India(With Connected ... on 9 April, 1957

16. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the word "AND" appearing in clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 19A, after "refusal" or "unfound" and before "where the landlord", should be read as "OR" otherwise it would render the word "AND" appearing in the opening part of the Sub-section redundant. There is no great force in this contention. The word "OR" also appears in this clause. If the intention of the Legislature would have been that the rent may be deposited in the Court after the compliance of clause (a) or clause (b) only, it could have used the word 'OR' instead of 'AND'. Because of the said difficulties in depositing an amount in the court and its withdrawal therefrom, the legislature provided that the amount should be deposited in the Court only after exhausting both the methods Laid down in clauses (a) and (b). It has been observed in R.M.D.C. v. Union of India , as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 336 - Full Document

Martin & Harris Pvt. Ltd. vs Prem Chand on 7 March, 1974

4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that it is well proved from the findings recorded by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned lower appellate court that no amount of rent was due for six months, the provisions of Section 13(1)(a)of the Act are not attracted in any case, mere defaults in payment of rent of different six or more months do not attract the provisions of this clause and this clause simply requires that an amount of rent should remain due for six or more months. He further contended that the defendants validly deposited the amounts of rent in the court after the money orders were refused by the respondents, it was not necessary for them to send written notices under Section 19-A(3)(b) of the Act requiring their landlords to specify the bank and the account number and Section 13(1)(a) has to be read with Section 19-A(4) of the Act. He also contended that the word 'AND' appearing in clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 19-A should be read as 'OR' otherwise the object of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 would be frustrated. He relied upon Martin & Harris (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand 1974 RLW 115 (FB); Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P. , Khemka & Co. v. State of Maharashtra and Girdhari Lal and Sons v. Babir Nath .
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 12 - P N Shinghal - Full Document
1