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

1980 Supreme(MP) 84

J.P.BAJPAI
Shankerlal – Appellant
Versus
Matthulal – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant: R. D. Jain.
For Respondent: N. P. Mittal and R. C. Lahoti.

JUDGMENT

J. P Bajpai, J

l. According to law the arrears of rent are to be paid or tendered to the landlord and not to be tied to his neck. The provisions made in M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) requiring a tenant to pay the amount of arrears of rent within the prescribed period of service of notice of demand and further requiring him to continue to make payment regularly month to month during the pendency of a suit for eviction are meant for protecting the interests of landlord also in the, matter of recovery of rent while providing for protection to the tenant against eviction. In order to ensure the compliance of the aforesaid requirements, the legislature thought it proper to deprive the defaulting tenant of the protection against eviction on the grounds as specified in Clause (a) of section 12 (1). But these provisions are not intended for being used as a handle by the landlord to any how create a ground for eviction of the tenant by avoiding to receive payment of arrears of rent when tendered with an ulterior motive to see that a case is any how made out for claiming eviction on the ground of default.

2. The case giving rise to this appea









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