CM(M) No. 28 of 2007 · Delhi High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 s. 15(1)
Judgment
the cheque was sent, learned trial court has noted that it could not be a bona fide mistake to send the cheque in the name of the son, assuming one was sent, keeping in view the fact that Signature Not Verified Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Page lof 2 > the son had refused to accept the tender of money when sent through a money order.
It has additionally been noted by the learned trial court that the tenant did not even bother to find out from his banker whether the cheque in question was encashed.
Keeping in view the default made by the tenant, delay has not been condoned and no further time has been granted to the tenant to tender or deposit the rent. Delay has not been condoned.
All relevant facts have been noted by the learned trial court. Discretion has been exercised within the bounds of the discretionary power vested in the trial court.
No merits. Dismissed. January09, 2007 T-rrv^- PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.