<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (10) TMI 503 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160102</link>
    <description>Under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, once eviction proceedings are filed the tenant must deposit arrears and continue monthly deposits, but the court may extend time and permit instalments under Section 17(2A). As the tenant had timely tendered rent and the landlord had refused acceptance, the later deposit delay was only technical and not wilful. The tenant was therefore not a defaulter, and the delay was liable to be condoned under the statutory scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 503 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160102</link>
      <description>Under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, once eviction proceedings are filed the tenant must deposit arrears and continue monthly deposits, but the court may extend time and permit instalments under Section 17(2A). As the tenant had timely tendered rent and the landlord had refused acceptance, the later deposit delay was only technical and not wilful. The tenant was therefore not a defaulter, and the delay was liable to be condoned under the statutory scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>