Delhi Court October 1968 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Detoa Vs. Phagu
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT424
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The question in this appeal is whether this court can suo mtou exerciset powers of superintendence and control without having been moved by a specific petition under article 227 of the Constitution. (2) Khasra No 451 measuring 5 bighas and 12 bids was of village Kumar said was admittedly cultivated by respondent Phagnu holding under the appellant deity. It is said that Phagnu relinquished his rights as a tenant about 12 or 14 years ago and since then is tilling this land as an employee of the deity. If the land was under the personal cultivation of the deity, then it did nto vest in the State in view of subsection (2) of section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereafter called the Act). Nevertheless, the Compensation Officer purposed to proceed under Section 27 of the Act and actually ordered on 28th December, 1967 that the ownership rights be granted in favor of the deity against payment of Rs. 168.24. The gr...
Prem Raj Vs. Surat Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT90
I.D. Dua, J. (1) Shri Prem Raj has preferred this revision under section 35 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (No. 38 of 1952) against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge Its Class dated 20th April 1961 dismissing the present petitioner's application under section 15 of the aforesaid Act. (2) It appears that in proceedings for ejectment against the present petitioner from the shop in question an eviction decree was made on 6th August, 1956 on the ground that the shop was required for re. building. The landlord undertook to restore back the possession of the shop in question. The shop to be restored was marked 'B' showa in the plan attached with the plaint in eviction proceedings. According to the present petitioner against whom order of eviction was made he delivered the possession o f the shop in his occupation on 15th September 1956 and his grievance which he desires to be redressed in the present proceedings is restoration of possession of the newly built shop. (3) This claim was c...
S. Inder Singh Vs. Nanak Chand and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT149
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) Concurrent orders of eviction in favor of the respondents made by the learned Rent Controller on 18th April, 1967 and by the Rent Control Tribunal made on appeal on 13th November, 1967 are the subject of challenge in this second appeal from order under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 (hereafter called the Act). (2) The eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground of personal bona fide requirements by the landlords and also on the ground of acquisition of alternative accommodation by the tenant under clauses (e) and (h) respectively of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Act. The ground of acquisition of alternative accommodation by the tenant was nto pressed by the landlords during the' course of arguments. On the toher ground, however, it was common case before the controller that the premises in dispute had been let to the tenant for residence and the ownership of the landlord was also held to be proved by the sale-deed Exhibit A. I, The tenant h...
L. Hans Raj Gupta and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1968
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi240; [1969]73ITR765(Delhi)
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) This is one consolidated reference made to us by the Income-tax Appell Rate Tribunal in the case of L. Hans Raj Gupta and of M/s. H. G. Gupta and Sons arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 19th November, 1962, in Income-Tax Appeal Nos. 6841 and 7177 of 1961-62. The relevant year of assessment is 1956-57, the accounting year in btoh the cases being ending 31st March, 1956. The questions referred to us in the case of Hans Raj Gupta are- 1.'Whether in view of the clause 12 of the partnership deed dated 30th March, 1954, it could be said that there was an overriding title in favor of Messrs H. G. Gupta and Sons and, thereforee, the sum of Rs. 55,664.00) should have been excluded from Shri Hansraj Gupta's ttoal income ?' 2.'Whether, in any case, the aforesaid sum of Rs. 55,664.00 could be claimed as permissible deduction under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' and in that of Messrs H. G. Gupta and Sons are- 3.'Whether the amount of Rs. 55,664.00 ha...
T.C. Rakhi Vs. Usha Gujral, Lucknow
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1968
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi9
I.D. Dua, J.(1) This second appeal from order presented under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 (hereafter called the Act) challenges the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated 30/1/1967 accepting the appeal and setting aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 28/1/1966 and as a result granting an order of eviction against the present appellant.(2) The order of ejectment was claimed under clauses (b) and (e) of proviso to section 14(1) of the Act. In so far as the question of subletting etc. covered by clause (b) is concerned, it was nto pressed before the learned Tribunal and it accordingly does nto concern me in the present proceedings. The only question surviving decision is that of bona fide requirement by the Landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family depending on him which is covered by section 14(1) proviso (e). The learned Additional Rent Controller did nto agree with Smt. Usha Gujral, who had sough...
Pearey Lal Syal Vs. Dhian Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT88
I.D. Dua, J. (1) This second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act questions the concurrent conclusions of the Rent Control Tribunal and of the First Additional Rent Controller by means of which it has been held that the landlord (respondent in this Court) requires the premises for his own personal use. (2) Before the Rent Control fribunal, a point was sought to be raised for the first time based on the observations of a judgment of the Supreme Court in Manujendra Dutt v Purnedu Prosad Roy Chowdhnryl. This new point was based on the provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Tribunal, in its discretion did nto allow this point to be raised. (3) Before me, Shri N. D. Bali, the learned counsel for the appellant, has very strongly and eloquently argued that the learned Tribunal has committed a substantial error of law In nto permitting him to raise this point. I am nto impressed by this contention. A new point can only be raised en appeal with t...
Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. Hans Raj Taneja and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1968
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi127
Inder Dev Dua, J.(1) This appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is directed against an order of remand made by the learned Rent Control Tribunal on 12-3-1968 after allowing the appeal of Shri Hans Raj Taneja and Smt. Raj Dulari from the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 14/9/1967 dismissing their application for eviction of the tenant who is the appellant in this Court. The learned Rent Controller disallowed the plea of a bona fide requirement on the ground that the application for eviction did nto contain an averment or allegation that the landlords seeking ejectment for their bona fide requirements, were the owners of the premises in question. I need nto go into the toher ground on which also the eviction order was claimed and which was repelled. (2) On appeal, the learned Rent Control Tribunal, following a decision of this Court, in which it was observed that the statutory requirement of the petitioner being the owner of the premises from which evicti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›