Delhi Court April 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.
Kanwal Kishore Chopra Vs. O.P. Diwedi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi53
ORDER1. This civil revision has been filed under sub-see. (8) of S. 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has been filed by the tenant and is directed against the order of the Additional Controller dated 13th October, 1976 by which he has refused the petitioner leave to contest the eviction petition and has passed an order for eviction against the petitioner.2. The material facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent in respect of the premises in dispute. On 4th June, 1976 the respondent instituted a. petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Act. The petition had to 13e tried according to the summary procedure prescribed by Section 25-B of the Act On service of the summons the petitioner filed an application f or leave to contest the eviction petition. The petitioner raised the following objection& ...
Bhagwanti and ors. Vs. Shiv Dei and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi761
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to the amendment, .has been filed by the legal representatives of the first defendant, who is the vendee. The appeal is directed against the appellate decree of Mr. H. K. S. Malik, then Senior Sub-Judge, dated 6th October, 1972, by which he has allowed the appeal and reversing the decree of the court of first instance, dated 12th April, 1971, finally decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent for recovery of possession of the land in dispute by pre-emption.(2) In this appeal, Chandi Ram, respondent No. 2 was the vendor of the land, who was defendant No. 2 in the suit and is not represented. The contesting respondent is Smt. Shiv Dei, plaintiff in the suit, respondent No. 1 herein and she is the wife of respondent No. 2. The contesting defendant, of course, is the appellant, vendee. The land in dispute measures about 8 bids was or 414 sq. yds., in plot No. 63, Khasra No. 140, village Mubarakpur...
Kamal Kishore Chopra Vs. O.P. Dwedi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi776
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This civil revision has been filed under subsection (8) of section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has been filled by the tenant and is directed against the order of the Additional Controller dated 18th October, 1976, by which he has refused the petitioner leave to contest the eviction, petition and has passed an order for eviction against the petitioner.(2) The material facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent in respect of the premises in dispute. On 4th June 1976 the respondent instituted a petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity specified in clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The petition had to be tried according to the summary procedure prescribed by section 25B of the Act. On service of the summons the petitioner filed an application for leave to contest the eviction petition. The petitioner raised the...
Hardwari Lal Verma Vs. the Estate Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi268
ORDER1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India brought by the petitioner in respect of an order passed by the Estate Officer under S. 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971. The petitioner at the relevant time. was employed as a civilian clerk in the defense Services. He was allotted a Quarter situated at T-13, Tabruk Lane In Delhi Cantonment. Apparently, he was posted out of Delhi in March, 1968, but he retained the quarter. It seems that he went on paying the market rent but eventually as per letter, dated 18th March, 1974, he was informed that the allotment of his quarter was deemed to have been cancelled with effect from 9th Jr March, 1968. This was followed by the order of Estate Officer, Brig. P. Bhattacharya, holding that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant who had to be evicted.2.The petitioner filed an appeal under S. 9 of the Act which was heard by Shri G. R. Luthra, Additional District Judge, Delhi. The appellat...
Kahan Chand Makan Vs. B.S. Bhambri
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi247; ILR1977Delhi705
Pritam Singh Safeer, J. (1) This judgment will diapose of the reference made in S.A.O. No. 213 of 1969 as well as S.A.O. No. 231 of 1974.(2) S.A.O. No. 213 of 1969 was taken up by B. C. Misra, J. on 26th of March, 1975 and he made a reference in terms of the order passed on that date;. S.A-O- No. 231 of 1974 was also taken up by him on the same date and in accordance with the order he passed it was observed that a reference had been made in the earlier case and the appeals would be heard on merits after the reference has been answered.(3) We need ;not notice the facts with which the two appeals are concerned, because we are to answer the reference only.(4) A careful perusal of the detailed order of reference made in S.A.O. No. 213 of 1969 leads to the conclusion that the learned Judge was faced with the question as to what would be the true interpretation of section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The- concerned provisions may be noticed at once. Section 14(2) in the Act is:...
S.S. Bhagat and ors. Vs. N.S. Ahluwalia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi34; ILR1977Delhi485B; 1977RLR404
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) Six plaintiffs claiming themselves to be trustees of six trusts have brought this suit under s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) against N. S. Ahluwalia, the sole defendant. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant has committed serious breaches of trust. (2) The reliefs asked for in the plaint are as follows : that the defendant be removed from the office of the trustee; that he be directed to render accounts; that he be ordered to deliver the trust property and a declaration that the property was an endowed property should be made. (3) In the plaint the plaintiffs say that by an order dated January 11, 1974 they have obtained the consent of the Additional District Magistarate (South) Delhi exercising the powers of the Advocate- General under s. 92 of the Code as conferred upon him by the Lt. Governor Delhi for the institution of the present suit. (4) The defendant has raised numerous defenses to the suit. As regards consent the defense i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›