MOOL CHAND GARG
AMOLAK RAM – Appellant
Versus
RAM PRASAD – Respondent
1. This is an appeal arising out of an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT), who has not agreed with the appellant/landlord to grant him interest on the arrears of rent which was not paid earlier on account of the dispute raised by the respondent regarding the rate of rent but were paid subsequent to the adjudication about the rate of rent by the RCT. In fact the grievance pertains to an order passed by the first appellant tribunal whereby an appeal filed by the appellant before the said Tribunal was decided on 15.02.2000 restricting the payment of interest on the arrears of rent deposited after the adjudication of the quantum of rent by the respondent only to be payable w.e.f. 20.10.1995 which was the date when learned Additional Rent Controller adjudicated the rate of rent as payable by the respondent/tenant to appellant as `370/- and not `70/-
2. According to the appellant after the amendment of Section 26 of Delhi Rent Control Act w.e.f. 01.12.1998, the duty to pay the interest @ 25% in addition to the amount due towards rent was upon the tenant and such payment ought to have been made without their being any demand. It will be appropriate to take note of the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.