https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157768 Under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, the tenant's primary duty under the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) was to tender the arrears of rent due, while the Rent Controller's role was limited to calculating interest and costs; the Controller was not required at the first hearing to determine the arrears of rent, and failure to tender the full arrears invalidated the deposit. The Rules governing particulars in the ejectment application were held directory, not mandatory, because the effect of non-compliance depended on purpose, prejudice and statutory object; omission to state the arrears did not vitiate proceedings where no prejudice was shown. The ejectment order was upheld. en-us Fri, 10 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157768 Under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, the tenant's primary duty under the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) was to tender the arrears of rent due, while the Rent Controller's role was limited to calculating interest and costs; the Controller was not required at the first hearing to determine the arrears of rent, and failure to tender the full arrears invalidated the deposit. The Rules governing particulars in the ejectment application were held directory, not mandatory, because the effect of non-compliance depended on purpose, prejudice and statutory object; omission to state the arrears did not vitiate proceedings where no prejudice was shown. The ejectment order was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157768