GUJARAT HIGH COURT
K.M. MEHTA, J
HEIRS OF SHANTABEN DAHYABHAI- BHAGWANDAS D PATEL – Appellant
Versus
SAROJBEN WD/O N S PANDYA – Respondent
-------
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.