<?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>2009 (8) TMI 1282 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308050</link>
    <description>After an eviction decree under the Bombay Rent Act, a tenant pending appeal or revision cannot insist on an unconditional stay or claim an absolute right to remain in occupation on payment of only the contractual rent. The SC applied Atma Ram Properties and held that stay of execution is discretionary and may be granted on reasonable terms. Accordingly, the appellate or revisional court may require deposit of rent at a rate higher than the contractual rent, provided the condition is not excessive, fanciful or punitive. The impugned stay order requiring monthly deposit at the higher amount was therefore upheld and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 May 2023 15:10:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=714736" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1282 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308050</link>
      <description>After an eviction decree under the Bombay Rent Act, a tenant pending appeal or revision cannot insist on an unconditional stay or claim an absolute right to remain in occupation on payment of only the contractual rent. The SC applied Atma Ram Properties and held that stay of execution is discretionary and may be granted on reasonable terms. Accordingly, the appellate or revisional court may require deposit of rent at a rate higher than the contractual rent, provided the condition is not excessive, fanciful or punitive. The impugned stay order requiring monthly deposit at the higher amount was therefore upheld and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308050</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>