Showing posts with label first date of hearing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label first date of hearing. Show all posts

Monday, 12 December 2016

When court should pass decree for eviction against tenant if he fails to deposit rent in court on first date of hearing?

 The
facts on record, as detailed supra, would show that the
defendants   No.   1   and   2   not   only   failed   to   tender   the
rent to the plaintiff after receipt of the communication
but they did not even deposit the rent in the court on
the   first   date   of   hearing.   The   decree   passed   by   the
learned   trial   court,   as   confirmed   by   the   learned
Principal  District  Judge,  in  the  circumstances, cannot
be assailed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2012
Rameshchandra Daulal Soni,

V
 Devichand Hiralal Gandhi,


­­­­
   CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

DATED  : 20th JULY, 2015
Citation:2016(6) ALLMR 63
Print Page

Sunday, 12 April 2015

What will be consequences if tenant fails to pay rent after first date of hearing?


In view of this Clause, it is clear that the tenant can avoid decree of eviction if on the first date of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the Court may fix tenant pays or tenders in the Court standard rent and permitted increases, which is due and thereafter continues to pay or tender in the Court regularly such rent or permitted increases till the suit is finally decided. Even though in 1987, the defendant No. 1 to 3 had paid arrears of rent till then and that payment was made prior to first date of hearing, i.e., the date of framing of issues, still the defendants did not continue to pay or tender in the Court regularly the annual rent till final disposal of the suit. Thus, the second part of the Clause (b) was violated. It is not sufficient that all the arrears are paid on the first date of hearing but it is also necessary that the tenant continues to pay rent thereafter regularly till the suit is finally decided. As that condition was not fulfilled, the defendant could not get the protection of not passing the decree of eviction.
 Citation: 2008(3)ALLMR277, 2008(4)MhLj275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Civil Revision Application No. 187 of 2008
Decided On: 26.02.2008
Vasant Raghosheth Tambe and Rajesh Vasant Tambe
Vs.
Shri Bholadasji Mandir, 
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
J.H. Bhatia, J.

Print Page