<?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>1999 (7) TMI 717 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459623</link>
    <description>Section 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 requires a tenant facing eviction for rent default to deposit arrears and continue current rent during proceedings, and Section 11(4) grants relief only on proof of sufficient cause for non-compliance. The text explains that &quot;sufficient cause&quot; demands bona fide, reasonable conduct and no negligence or inaction. On the stated facts, the tenant did not deposit rent within time, did not seek relief on a genuine inability to comply, denied the landlord-tenant relationship, and failed to maintain monthly deposits. The later deposit before the appellate authority was said to satisfy only the appeal-hearing requirement and not to establish sufficient cause. The note states that eviction for default was therefore sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2024 11:02:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 717 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459623</link>
      <description>Section 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 requires a tenant facing eviction for rent default to deposit arrears and continue current rent during proceedings, and Section 11(4) grants relief only on proof of sufficient cause for non-compliance. The text explains that &quot;sufficient cause&quot; demands bona fide, reasonable conduct and no negligence or inaction. On the stated facts, the tenant did not deposit rent within time, did not seek relief on a genuine inability to comply, denied the landlord-tenant relationship, and failed to maintain monthly deposits. The later deposit before the appellate authority was said to satisfy only the appeal-hearing requirement and not to establish sufficient cause. The note states that eviction for default was therefore sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459623</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>