Delhi Court June 1971 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1971 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.016 seconds)David Brown Vs. Swjit Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1971RLR716
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The sole question for decision in these two connected second appeals (SAO. 37 and 42 of 1971) is whether the orders of eviction passed by the Controller against these two tenants who are the appellants in favor of the common respondent who is the landlord under proviso (e) to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 were illegal on the ground that the petition for eviction by the landlord were filed in November, 1968 though the actual date of retirement of the landlord was 17th August, 1971. (2) Learned Counsel for the tenant appellants are on strong ground in urging that the decision must solely rest upon the construction of proviso (e) which is in the following terms :- 'THAT the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof or for-any person for whose benefit the premises are held and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation, Delhi Vs. Ved Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1972RLR28
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This appeal has with the leave of this Court been filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and is directed against an order of a Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, dated 6th August, 1966, by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused respondent of the offence under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. (2) The brief facts of the case are that Shanti Nath, Food Inspector, found that the accused-respondent was carrying cow's milk for sale on 22nd January, 1966 at about 7-30 A.M. at Esplanade Road, Delhi. The Food Inspector took a sample of the milk and sent it to the Public Analyst for test which reported 1.5 deficiency in fat vide report Exhibit P.E. which came to 42.8 per cent. As a result, the accused was sent up for trial and the sample was sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta who by report dated 31st May, 1966 stated that milk fat contained in the sample was 1.5 and he gave his opinion that the sample was adulterated. (3...
Tag this Judgment!