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

1978 Supreme(MP) 26

C.P.SEN, M.L.MALIK, K.K.DUBE, SHIV DAYAL, J.P.BAJPAI
MANKUNWAR BAI – Appellant
Versus
SUNDERLAL JAIN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.M.AGRAWAL, P.C.Naik

SHIV DAYAL, C. J.

( 1 ) ONE of us (Bajpai, J.) had referred the following question for being decided by a larger Bench:-" whether in compliance with the requirement of Sub-section (1) of section 13, is it necessary for the defendant-tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit in Court the amount of arrears of rent, the recovery of which has become barred by limitation and which the landlord-plaintiff on his part cannot recover by process in the Court? " a bench of three Judges heard the reference and by unanimous opinion dated nov. 19, 1977 (reported in AIR 1978 Madh Pra 54 (FB)) answered the question in the negative. It was held:--

"the tenant is not obliged to deposit time-barred rent under the first part of Section 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. " thereafter, when this Second Appeal was placed before the Single Bench, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in khadi Gram Udyog Trust v. Shri Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir, Civil Appeal no. 1313 of 1977, D/- 28-11-1977 : (reported in AIR 1978 SC 287 ). It was urged for the appellants that the Supreme Court decision runs counter to the opinion of the Full Bench of this Court





















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