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

GUJARAT HIGH COURT
K.M. MEHTA, J
HEIRS OF SHANTABEN DAHYABHAI- BHAGWANDAS D PATEL – Appellant
Versus
SAROJBEN WD/O N S PANDYA – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR AJ PATEL
For the Respondents: MR SM SHAH, MR KJ KAKKAD, MR PK PANDYA

-------

1312.00Till the date of decree.

2156.0016.12.19850077861.

---------

3468.00Total

--------------------------------------------------------

15.13Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that in the alternative and without prejudice to the

aforesaid grounds, even the decree could not have been

passed under section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act because

the rent is paid as per the schedule of payment [as

shown in the statement] showing details of payment. He

submitted that, the fact that the trial court has to

adjudicate that means that tenant has raised a bonafide

dispute of a standard rent. It was further submitted

that even if rent was payable by the tenant from 1972,

when the standard rent was fixed on 29.10.1985, an

amount of Rs.1,312.00 was already deposited in the Court

and thereafter within a period of short period a further

amount of Rs.2,156.40p/was deposited and this is done

exactly in accordance with the requirement of this

Hon'ble Court that if the standard rent is fixed, the

ten












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