ATMA RAM versus SHAKUNTALA RANI

ATMA RAM versus SHAKUNTALA RANI

Deposit of rent under Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 is not valid for purposes of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956; tenant must deposit arrears of rent with Rent Controller as prescribed by Section 27 to avoid default. Failure to comply renders tenant in default and liable for eviction under Section 14(1)(a).

Parties
Appellant: Atma Ram; Respondent: Shakuntala Rani
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Delhi High Court Order Under Article 227
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Default of Rent, Eviction, Statutory Procedure
Landlord Tenant Rent Control Default of Rent Eviction Statutory Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Atma Ram

Appellant

Shakuntala Rani

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Delhi High Court Order Under Article 227

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deposit of arrears of rent under Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 constitutes valid payment under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956
  2. 2 Whether tenant defaulted in payment/tender/deposit of rent required by the Delhi Rent Control Act
  3. 3 Scope of High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution on concurrent findings

Ratio Decidendi

Deposit of rent under Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 is not valid for purposes of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956; tenant must deposit arrears of rent with Rent Controller as prescribed by Section 27 to avoid default. Failure to comply renders tenant in default and liable for eviction under Section 14(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Eviction order against appellant affirmed
  • Appellant found in default for period February 1, 1992 to January 31, 1995