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

2003 Supreme(SC) 106

S.B.SINHA, A.R.LAKSHMANAN
Nasiruddin – Appellant
Versus
Sita Ram Agarwal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

As regards applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the matter of default in deposit of rent as also interpretation of the word shall occurring in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to the Act , for the sake of brevity), a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 21.3.2002 referred the matter to a three Judge Bench observing:

"....Looking to the importance of the questions and the conflicting views taken in the judgments of this Court, we deem it proper that the case is heard by a Bench of three Judges."

2. That is how the matter is before us.

3. Before adverting to the aforementioned questions, the factual matrix involved in the matter may be noticed. The appellant herein is the landlord in respect of the suit premises and the respondent is a tenant therein. Allegedly, the respondent did not pay rent for the period 1.8.1986 to 31.1.1987 wherefor upon service of the legal notice, a suit for possession and arrears of rent was filed which was marked as Civil Suit No. 824 of 1993.

4. The learned Trial Judge in terms of the provisions contained in Section 13(3) of the Act determined the provisional rent @Rs.






























































































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