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

1981 Supreme(Del) 163

SULTAN SINGH
BUDH PRAKASH SETHI – Appellant
Versus
SUMITRA DEVI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.L.Arora, Keshav Dayal, R.B.GUPTA, R.DAYAL, S.L.Bhatia

Sultan Singh, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal on behalf of the tenant under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act ) is directed against the order of eviction passed against him under Section 14 (1) (a) read with the proviso to Section 14 (2) of the Act.

( 2 ) THE appellant was inducted as a tenant in shop No. 14, Krishna Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi by Anant Ram, Predecessor of the respondents (hereinafter called the landlord ) in 1962 at a monthly rent of Rs. 50. 00. He sent a notice of demand dated 7th November, 1964 and another notice dated 30th February, 1965 requiring the appellant to pay arrears of rent for the period from 1st February, 1963 onwards. The appellant, it appears, neither paid nor tendered the rent due. The landlord on 22nd April, 1965 filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (l) (a) of the Act alleging that the appellant neither paid nor tendered the arrears, of rent in spite of service of notice of demand. The appellant claimed fixation of standard rent of the premises and pleaded that he had paid rent up to 31st July, 1964. He also claimed certain amount on account of repairs and electricity charges alleged to have been paid b


















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