MANIK CHAND JAIN versus MD. AHIYA
Appellate and High Court findings upheld: agreement fixed lawful rent at Rs.2400 per month (Rs.1200 cash, Rs.1200 adjusted against advance). Tenant paid only Rs.700, which was not lawful rent, and deposit in court did not satisfy statutory requirements. After adjustment of advance, tenant remained defaulter for Rs.7614; courts properly directed eviction and arrears recovery.
- Parties
- Appellant Tenant: Manik Chand Jain; Respondent Landlord: Md. Ahjya
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 06 March 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Judgment / Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Eviction for Non Payment of Rent, Adjustment of Advance Rent, Lawful Rent Deposit
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Manik Chand Jain
Appellant Tenant
Md. Ahjya
Respondent Landlord
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment / Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the tenant was a defaulter under Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 for not paying the rent lawfully due.
- 2 Whether the advance amount paid by tenant was properly adjusted against the rent.
- 3 Whether deposit of Rs.700 per month in Court constituted lawful rent under Section 5(4) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
Appellate and High Court findings upheld: agreement fixed lawful rent at Rs.2400 per month (Rs.1200 cash, Rs.1200 adjusted against advance). Tenant paid only Rs.700, which was not lawful rent, and deposit in court did not satisfy statutory requirements. After adjustment of advance, tenant remained defaulter for Rs.7614; courts properly directed eviction and arrears recovery.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Decree for ejectment of defendant-tenant
- Recovery of arrears of rent Rs.7614.05
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment