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

1980 Supreme(Gau) 23

K.LAHIRI
Phukan Chandra Bayan, petitioner – Appellant
Versus
Madhav Chandra and others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B. Sarma and B.R. Das, N.N. Goswami, P.N. Goswami and L.M. Kshetry

Judgement

The learned counsel for the petitioner has exercised his forensic abilities to establish that the wholesome provisions contained in S.114 of the T.P. Act 1882, empowering the court, in lieu of making a decree for ejectment in case of forfeiture for non-payment of rent, to grant relief to the lessee against such forfeiture if the tenant pays or tenders to the lessor the rent in arrear together with interest thereon, is equally applicable in a suit to eject a tenant governed by the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. The learned counsel advanced the argument bearing in mind the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, AIR 1979 SC 1745, and the decision of this Court in L.P.A. 11 of 1976 disposed on 30-10-79, Ramesh Chandra Basak v. Deo Narain Prasad. It has been contended that the question posed has not been finally determined in any of the cases. The learned counsel submits that the Rent Control Act is a social legislation meant for the protection of the tenants as well as the landlords. Some of the provisions of the T.P. Act dealing with the rights and obligations of the landlords and the tenants have been abrogated wholly







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