SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 758

V.N.KHARE, B.N.KIRPAL, A.S.ANAND
Brij Bhukhan – Appellant
Versus
Kewalkumar – Respondent


Order

The only question involved in this appeal by special leave is whether the amount deposited by the tenant/respondent under Section 6A was valid tender? The learned Rent Controller held the deposit as not a valid tender while the appellate authority and the revisional court took a contrary view.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the tenant/respondent filed an application under Section 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) before the learned Rent Controller, Ambala on 19.5.88 alleging that the landlord was not receiving rent and was also not issuing receipt for the same, and, therefore, the tenant had no other option available to him except to deposit the arrears of rent in that court. On obtaining orders from the learned Rent Controller the tenant deposited the rent from 12.2.87 to 11.5.88 amounting to Rs. 7500/- in respect of the demised premises in the court. Notice was directed to be issued to the respondent for withdrawal of the amount by the learned Rent Controller. While the matter rested thus, the landlord filed an appli­cation under Section 13 of the Act seeking ejectment of the tenant from the dem

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top