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

1972 Supreme(Del) 183

B.C.MISRA, V.S.DESHPANDE
O. P. BAHAL – Appellant
Versus
B A. K. SHAROFF – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
H.R.KHANNA, J.K.Jain, MAEHSVAR DAYAL, V.B.ANDLEY, Y.Dayal

v. S. Deshpande, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THE respondent landlord filed a petition for eviction against the appellant tenant on the ground that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent from 17-12-1960. Clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) requires the landlord to serve a notice of demand for the arrears of rent on the tenant in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the relevant part of which runs as follows:-

"every notice under this section must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants, at his residence, or if such tender or delivery is not practicable affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. "it will be seen that three alternative modes of service of notice are contemplated therein, namely:-

(1) by post, (2) by delivery to the addressee or to one of his family or servants at his residence, and (3) by affixation to a conspicuous part of the property.

( 2 ) THE landlord adopted all the











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