Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2017/10/procedure-to-be-followed-by-tenant-if.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:33:53+00:00

Document:
and the facts of the present case on that line.
premises was given to the defendant for using it as a shop.
landlord had restricted his claim to Rs.21,779/-.
landlord can deduct the monthly rent from this amount.
denied that he is willful defaulter.
default ground is not proved.
and prior to the date of the suit.
rent. Exhibit 45 is written agreement between the parties.
could not prove that the had given Rs.65,000/- as deposit.
second suit was also dismissed.
period of 36 months prior to the date of the notice.
had restricted his claim to Rs.21,779/-, rent for 29 months.
spite of the aforesaid circumstances.
deposit amount of Rs.27,342/- for the period of 42 month.
this period. The written statement was filed on 25-9-2006.
period mentioned in the plaint and statutory notice.
admission of the defendant of aforesaid nature.
he deposited amount of rent with interest in the Court.
said that some amount was deposited towards rent only.
(herein after referred to as "the Act").
previous months and 2 previous months respectively.
him as the court thinks fit."
readiness and willingness to pay rent when it falls due.
not only standard rent but also permitted increases if any.
to pay rent, the landlord cannot get relief of ejectment.
Act, those conditions need to be complied by the tenant.
the landlord will not get decree of eviction on this ground.
permitted increases and so this point is not discussed.
the conditions of the written agreement or the practice.
of payment of the rent.
2005), which completely cover the case before us.
extracting too high rents from helpless tenants.
circumstance like written agreement between the parties.
the interest on it as required by section 15(3) of the Act.
(ii) 1993 Bom. R.C. 298 (Smt. Sonubai v. Smt.
(iii) 1982 Bom. R.C. 65 (Khimji Bhimji Majithia v.
Taraben Lalji Soni) (Gujarat High Court).
Raghunath Ravji Dandekar v. Anant Narayan Apte.
Similarly this Court in the case of Lalshankar Mulji v.
paid even the arrears to which the landlord is entitled.
the tenant has no case.
at all involved in the present matter.
reported as (1) AIR 1989 SC 630 (M/s. Madan & Co. v.
Wazir Jaivir Chand); and, (2) 2005 (2) BCJ 632 (SC) (P.T.
by the Courts below is correct and should be upheld.
be in arrears, a notice has to be served through post.
the addressee under S.27 of the General Clauses Act.
on the premises because of the addressee's absence.
served on, or is received by, the tenant."
receive the notice and it was returned unserved.
under the Post Office Act, 1898."
37) In the cases reported as 2003 (4) Bom. C.R.
612 (David K.N. v. S.R. Chaubey) and 2005 (4) Mh.L.J.
postman to prove the aforesaid intimation.
High Court are of no help to the tenant.
same address but it was not returned by the post office.
decide as to whether there is truth in his defence.
appellate Court cannot sustain in law.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.