KULKARNI PATTERNS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. versus VASANT BABURAO ASHTEKAR AND ORS.

KULKARNI PATTERNS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. versus VASANT BABURAO ASHTEKAR AND ORS.

Presumption of service by registered post is valid unless rebutted. In this case, one notice's receipt was disputed, but notices were sent to all defendants including the company tenant; no effective rebuttal was given by the company. Defendants failed to comply with mandatory requirements to deposit entire arrears and subsequent monthly rent; thus, decree for possession under Section 12(3)(b) was proper.

Parties
Appellant: Kulkarni Patterns Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent: Vasant Baburao Ashtekar; Appellant: P.H. Parekh; Respondent: S.K. Parshankar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 January 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal After Special Leave Granted
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination Notice, Service of Notice, Arrears of Rent, Mandatory Compliance of Rent Deposit, Presumption of Service by Post
Property Law Rent Control Civil Procedure Termination Notice Service of Notice Arrears of Rent Mandatory Compliance of Rent Deposit Presumption of Service by Post

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kulkarni Patterns Pvt. Ltd.

Appellant

Vasant Baburao Ashtekar

Respondent

P.H. Parekh

Appellant

S.K. Parshankar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal After Special Leave Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of termination notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was proved
  2. 2 Whether persistent default in payment of rent under Section 12(3)(b) of Bombay Rents Act was established

Ratio Decidendi

Presumption of service by registered post is valid unless rebutted. In this case, one notice's receipt was disputed, but notices were sent to all defendants including the company tenant; no effective rebuttal was given by the company. Defendants failed to comply with mandatory requirements to deposit entire arrears and subsequent monthly rent; thus, decree for possession under Section 12(3)(b) was proper.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decree for possession under Section 12(3)(b) of Bombay Rents Act affirmed.
  • Appellants to pay costs.