Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. L. OZA, J.
Shivnarayan - Appellant
Versus
Hafiz Ibrahim - Respondent
S. A. No. 586 or 1974 (I)
Decided on : 21-03-1977
1. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that although a ground under section 12 (1) (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") existed as the appellant-tenant did not pay the arrears of rent within two months, of the notice of demand but he deposited the amount according to learned counsel within one month of the service of the writ of summons; and therefore the respondents are not entitled to a decree under section 12 (1) (1). Learned counsel frankly conceded that in depositing the rent every month as required by the second part of sub-clause (1) of section 13 of the Act the tenant-appellant no doubt has committed defaults on some occasions.
Held : Section 13 (1) of the Act requires a tenant to deposit within one month of the service of the writ of summons all arrears of rent and further requires him to deposit Or pay month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. It is therefore clear that if the tenant complies with the two conditions in section 13 (1), then alone he is entitled to the protection under section 12 (3) of the Act. Admittedly, in the present case the tenant committed default in depositing monthly rent and therefore it could not be contended that he has complied with both the conditions required under section 13 (1) of the Act. He is therefore not entitled to the protection under sub-clause (3) of section 12 of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 3 of 1967 D/30-4-1968 Gangadevi v. Vishwanath Singh, 1968 JLJ SN 63, has taken the same view. Consequently, the decree passed against the appellant under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act could not be interfered with. 1968 JLJ SN 63, relied on.
Appeal dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
