KULDEEP SINGH versus GANPAT LAL AND ANR.

KULDEEP SINGH versus GANPAT LAL AND ANR.

Deposit of rent in Court under Section 19-A(3)(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 is valid only if specific statutory conditions are fulfilled. Since the appellant failed to meet those conditions, the deposit was not a valid tender, resulting in default and lawful grounds for eviction.

Parties
Appellant: Kuldeep Singh; Respondent: Ganpat Lal; Respondent: Another respondent
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Default in Rent Payment, Rent Deposit Procedure, Cause of Action, Pleading Requirements
Landlord Tenant Law Eviction Default in Rent Payment Rent Deposit Procedure Cause of Action Pleading Requirements

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kuldeep Singh

Appellant

Ganpat Lal

Respondent

Another respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deposit of rent in Court by tenant constituted a valid tender under Section 19A(3),(4) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950
  2. 2 When cause of action arises for eviction due to default in rent payment under the Act
  3. 3 Effect of incorrect date of cause of action in plaint as per Order VII Rule 1(e) CPC

Ratio Decidendi

Deposit of rent in Court under Section 19-A(3)(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 is valid only if specific statutory conditions are fulfilled. Since the appellant failed to meet those conditions, the deposit was not a valid tender, resulting in default and lawful grounds for eviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decree for eviction against appellant upheld
  • No order as to costs