TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court allows appeal, modifies ejectment proceedings, emphasizes need for case-by-case evaluation</h1> <h3>V.K. Verma Versus Radhey Shyam</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' order, and rejected the plaintiff's application to strike out the tenant's defense. The ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 13(5) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.2. Application of Section 57 of the 1958 Act in pending suits.3. Consideration of provisions under Section 15 of the new Act.4. Discretion of the Controller in ejectment proceedings.5. Scope of Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the application of Section 13(5) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The plaintiff sought an order for the defendant-tenant to deposit arrears of rent and future rent. The defendant contested the application, claiming a lower amount was due. The Subordinate Judge passed an order based on the last paid rent rate, which the defendant failed to comply with, leading to the defense being struck out.2. The defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the Court should have considered Section 57 of the 1958 Act. The Court of Appeal upheld the original decision, emphasizing the Controller's inability to extend payment time under Section 13(5). The High Court summarily dismissed the defendant's petition under Section 35, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.3. The main contention in the appeal was the failure to consider Section 57 of the 1958 Act, which requires courts to have regard to its provisions in pending suits. The comparison between Section 13(5) of the old Act and Section 15 of the new Act revealed slight modifications, particularly in the Controller's discretion to strike out the defense against eviction.4. The Supreme Court highlighted the deliberate modification in favor of tenants under the new Act, where the Controller has discretion in striking out defenses compared to the mandatory requirement under the old Act. The Court emphasized the necessity to apply the modified provisions of the new Act to the present suit, allowing for a case-by-case consideration of circumstances.5. The Court found that the lower courts had failed to consider the provisions of Section 15(7) of the new Act, indicating a trial not in accordance with the law. Despite the defendant's counsel not drawing attention to Section 57, the Court held that the omission did not absolve the courts from following clear legal provisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' order, and rejected the plaintiff's application to strike out the tenant's defense.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
