<?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>1985 (1) TMI 306 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165280</link>
    <description>In rent-control eviction for non-payment, &quot;wilful default&quot; is treated as an intentional, deliberate and conscious breach without justifiable cause. The Explanation added to section 10(2) creates a strong statutory presumption of wilfulness where the landlord serves two months&#039; notice and the tenant still fails to pay, but it does not wholly bar judicial scrutiny in every case. The proviso and Explanation are read harmoniously so neither becomes redundant, and where the notice condition is absent the court may still examine wilfulness on the facts. A dissent took the view that the Explanation supplied an exhaustive definition tied to continued default after notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 18:07:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357719" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (1) TMI 306 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165280</link>
      <description>In rent-control eviction for non-payment, &quot;wilful default&quot; is treated as an intentional, deliberate and conscious breach without justifiable cause. The Explanation added to section 10(2) creates a strong statutory presumption of wilfulness where the landlord serves two months&#039; notice and the tenant still fails to pay, but it does not wholly bar judicial scrutiny in every case. The proviso and Explanation are read harmoniously so neither becomes redundant, and where the notice condition is absent the court may still examine wilfulness on the facts. A dissent took the view that the Explanation supplied an exhaustive definition tied to continued default after notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165280</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>