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

VADIVEL CHETTY v. ABDU


Vadivel Chetty V. Abdu

1953 Present: Weerasooriya J.

VADIVEL CHETTY,
Appellant, and ABDU, Respondent

 S. C. 254-C. R. Colombo, 37,171
 

Landlord and tenant-Enhancement of rent-Not effective until there is agreement- Refusal of landlord to accept rent due-Resulting position-Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948, s. 13 (1) (a).

Where a tender of payment of the rent due was made by the tenant and was refused by the landlord on the ground that, as the monthly rent had been enhanced by him, a larger amount was due-

Held : (i) A landlord's unilateral act in demanding payment of a higher rent than that agreed upon does not render the tenant liable to pay the higher rent demanded.

(ii) Where a landlord refuses to accept the rent due when it is tendered to him, and has by his conduct made it clear that he will not, in the future, accept rent at the rate agreed upon, the tenant is not obliged to tender the rents for the subsequent months as and when they fall due. The tenant must, however, pay all the unpaid rent within a reasonable time if the landlord subsequently demands it or signifies his readiness to accept it.

(iii) Where the tenant has been given reasonable














































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