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

1977 Supreme(MP) 649

G.L.OZA
Shivnarayan – Appellant
Versus
Hafiz Ibrahim – Respondent


Short Note :

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 co

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