Back
J. K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL
Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His Lrs – Appellant
Versus
Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru. Lrs – Respondent
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenging the judgment dated 22.01.2001 passed in Suit No. 1 of 1992 by Small Causes Court dismissing the suit for eviction filed by landlord due to ‘nonpayment of rent’, ‘subletting’, and ‘expiry of rent agreement’, as affirmed by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2013, the present appeal has been filed.
3. The facts leading are that appellant (now deceased) was the owner of Shop No. 4 (Western Direction) situated in Mohalla Begupur, Muglani, Ram Prasad Bhalotia Market, District Gorakhpur city with the prescribed boundaries shown in the suit. The defendant/respondent (now deceased) was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 330/. The tenancy was for a fixed period of five years, which started from 01.07.1985 and ended on 30.06.1990. As per the terms of tenancy, on expiry of period of five years, the tenant may continue with increase of rent @ 15 % per month provided the same is agreeable to the owner.
4. It was averred in the suit that neither plaintiff – landlord intimated about construction of shop to Municipality nor Municipality recorded the same on its own and did the tax assessment of the shop in 1972. On objections being rais
The court established that consistent non-payment of rent during proceedings justifies eviction under the UP Rent Act.
Strict compliance with statutory provisions for rent deposits is mandatory; failure to comply invalidates the deposit and can lead to eviction.
The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Rent Control Act and the requirement for the tenant to offer rent to the landlord before depositing it in Court.
Point of law: When the aid of Revisional Court is invoked on the revisional side, it can interfere within the permissible parameters provided in the statute. It goes without saying that if a revision....
The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory provisions in eviction cases, particularly regarding rent payment and tenant obligations under the Bombay Rent Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Rent Act, requiring the tenant to deposit the whole rent and comply with the timing ....
A tenant's failure to communicate rent deposits and respond to rent demands constitutes default, justifying eviction under the Bombay Rent Act.
A tenant must deposit all arrears of rent, including time-barred amounts, to claim protection from eviction under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Tenant must comply with statutory deposit requirements under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act, including interest and costs, to avoid eviction.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
