income-tax Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Vs. M/S. Adilabad Sindhi Group Corpn. Adilabad. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to confer any right on tenant to plead that all defaults.....s. obul reddi, c.j. - the tribunal on a consideration of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that it cannot be held that the assessee is guilty of contumacious conduct in not playing the tax on his disputed income. it would appear stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal. from that one circumstances, it cannot be said that he deliberately chose not to pay the disputed tax, so as to warrant the imposition of penalty. we are therefore unable to direct the tribunal to make a reference to this court. the petition is dismissed. no costs.