Delhi Court January 1977 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.
Mahahir Pershad Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1977
Reported in: 1977RLR212
H.L. Anand, J. (1) Petitioner was employee of MCD. He was dismissed from service for certain charges, of misappropriation on 11.2.63. He was asked to vacate public premises on 17.2.68 under the P.P. (.Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958. He appealed against it and as the act was declared ultra vires, his appeal was accepted by the Adj (Appellate Officer) without deciding appeal on merits. New Act was passed in 1971 and all actions under old Act were validated by S. 20. After this petitioner's eviction was sought. He opposed it on the ground that as order was set aside, he could not be evicted on the basis of that order and also that order was beyond the reach of S. 20. After giving above facts, judgment para 5 onwards is ;- (2) It is true that the non-obstante clause in Section 20 is confined to judgment, decree or order 'of any Court' and the further expression 'authority' is not used so as to widen the scope of the validating provision. It is equally true that the appointme...
Bejoli Roy Chowdhry Vs. Amar Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi0182; 1977RLR464
H.L. Anand, J.(1) The petitioner, a tenant, assails an order of the second Additional Rent Controller, Delhi declining permission, to contest 'the application of the owner/respondents for eviction on the ground that the premises was bona fide required by the owners for their residence in view of the alleged insufficiency of accommodation available to them for the purpose. (2) The property in dispute is jointly owned by the three respondents and consists of a unit on the ground floor and on the first floor. Two of the joint owners respondents Nos. 1 and 2, reside in the first floor of the property in dispute, while the petitioner has been in occupation of the ground floor. The other joint owner, respondent No. 3, allegedly stays in a rented accommodation in Punjabi Bagh. The late husband of the petitioner was the original tenant, who, on his death, was survived by the petitioner, his widow, and a son, who has not been imp leaded in the proceedings. Leave under sub-section (5) of Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›