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

1996 Supreme(SC) 2316

A. M. AHMADI, N. P. SINGH, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
Ganesa Reddiar – Appellant
Versus
Muniappa Reddiar – Respondent


ORDER :

1. Special leave granted.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer made an order computing the arrears of Rs. 6,000/- and directed the tenant to pay the sum in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,500/- beginning from 20.1.90 and ending on 20.4.90. The tenant did not strictly adhere to the time schedule for payment of the arrears but did pay the arrears by paying Rs. 1,500/- on 24.1.90 late by 4 days, Rs 3,000/- on 30.8.90 and Rs. 1,500 on 4.10.90. The authorities, therefore, came to the conclusion that the cultivating tenant had failed to deposit the same 'as directed' and, therefore, he was liable to be evicted. Thus the eviction is solely on the ground of non-payment of the rent strictly in accordance with the time schedule worked out by the Revenue Officer.

3. It is, however, necessary to realise that there was nothing to preclude the Revenue Officer from extending the time and since he had accepted the payment and refused to pass an order of eviction he must be deemed to have done so. The High Court ought not to have interferred with that order. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order of the Revenue' Officer. There will be no order as to costs.

4. Th

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