Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Writ Petition No.10034/12. Case: R.A.Uppadhyay Vs Durgesh Chandra Khare. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberWrit Petition No.10034/12
CounselFor Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Mishra, learned counsel and For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel
JudgesU. C. Maheshwari, J.
IssueMadhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 - Section 13(1)(6); Constitution of India - Article 226
Judgement DateSeptember 04, 2013
CourtHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Judgment:

U. C. Maheshwari, J.

The petitioner/non-applicant/tenant has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the interlocutory order dated 7.6.2012 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Gorakhpur Division in Rent case no.10A 90(7)/2011(Annexure-P-4) whereby, allowing the application of the respondent/landlord filed under Section 13 (1) (6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961, (In short 'the Act'), has struck down the defence of the petitioner available under the provision of Section 23 A of the Act and its Scheme on account of committing the default in depositing the regular monthly rent of the disputed premises. Initially the case was argued at length but during the course of such arguments on asking the petitioner's counsel whether the regular contractual monthly rent was deposited by the petitioner in accordance with the provision of Section 13 (1) of the Act on which, he said that in that regard some default has taken place, however, he has deposited the entire arrears of the rent and also depositing the recurring regular rent of the premises. In continuation he said that, in order to condone the aforesaid delay in depositing the arrears of rent...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT