https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294013 The Full Bench concluded that the tenant did not default under Section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. Despite the money order reaching the landlord after 30 days, the tenant had informed the landlord and had implied authority to remit the rent by money order. The Full Bench held that once the money was handed to the post office, the tenant fulfilled the obligation, and any delay in transit was not the tenant's fault. Therefore, the tenant was not considered to have committed a default in payment. en-us Thu, 11 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:50:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294013 The Full Bench concluded that the tenant did not default under Section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. Despite the money order reaching the landlord after 30 days, the tenant had informed the landlord and had implied authority to remit the rent by money order. The Full Bench held that once the money was handed to the post office, the tenant fulfilled the obligation, and any delay in transit was not the tenant's fault. Therefore, the tenant was not considered to have committed a default in payment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294013