Back
SARAL SRIVASTAVA
Kamlesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Sardar Manjeet Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord, and Sri Kiran Kumar Arora, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant and perused the records.
2. The petitioner through the present petition has assailed the judgment and decree dated 29.1.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Moradabad in S.C.C. Revision No. 24 of 2010, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the revision of the respondent-tenant and set aside the judgment and decree dated 3.5.2010 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Moradabad in S.C.C. Suit No. 58 of 2006, whereby the Trial Court has decreed the suit of the petitioner-landlord for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-landlord had instituted a S.C.C. Suit No. 58 of 2006 contending, inter alia, that the respondent-tenant is the tenant of one shop in a commercial building situated at Mohalla Bishanpura, main market, Kasba Kanth, District Moradabad. It is also alleged that the tenancy of the respondent-tenant was month to month and began on the 10th of
Strict compliance with statutory provisions for rent deposits is mandatory; failure to comply invalidates the deposit and can lead to eviction.
Point of Law : The provisions under Order XV Rule 5(2) provides a locus poenitentiae to the defaulting tenant to make a representation, which must be made within ten days of the first hearing or with....
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.
Tenant can only deposit rent in Court as long as landlord has refused to accept rent – Once landlord expresses his willingness to accept rent, tenant has no option but to deposit rent to landlord.
Tenants cannot be evicted for non-payment of rent if they have made proper deposits under legal requirements, and landlords had knowledge of these deposits.
Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 cannot be invoked for rent deposits once an eviction suit is pending, requiring adherence to procedural rules of the ongoing legal proceedings.
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.
The failure of the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 27 of the Act, after the landlord's refusal to accept the tendered rent, makes the tenant liable for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the....
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
