Delhi Court August 1978 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.
i.R.K. Parikh Vs. Uma Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-1978
Reported in: 1978RLR592
Avadh Behari, J. (1) These three civil revisions and one second appeal from order raise a common question of law. This judgment will govern them all. (2) The facts of these cases are very much similar. Three separate applications were made by three different landlords for the eviction of their tenant. In two cases out of which C. R. 577 of 1977 and C. R. 279 of 1977 have arisen the ground of ejectment was bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family dependant on him under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (1958 the Act.) In the third case in which Sao 140 of 1977 and Cr 730 of 1977 have been filed the landlord was a Government servant and he claimed eviction of his tenant on the ground that he was required to vacate the premises allotted to him by the Central Government and thereforee a right had accrued to him to recover immediately possession of the premi...
R.K. Pamkh Vs. Uma Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi17; ILR1978Delhi786
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) These three civil revisions and one second appeal from order raise a common question of law. This judgment will govern them all. (2) The facts of these cases are very much similar. Three separate appli- cations were made by three different landlords for the eviction of their tenants. In two cases out of which C.R. 577 of 1977 and C.R. 279 of 1977 have arisen the ground of ejectment was bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family dependent on him under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of s. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (the Act). In the third case in which Sao 148 of 1977 and Cr 730 of 1977 have been filed the landlord was a Government servant and he claimed eviction of his tenant on the ground that he was required to vacate the premises allotted to him by the Central Government and thereforee a right had aiccrued to him to recover immediately possession of...
Ranjit Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT188
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) On 21st September 1975 Vasheshar Nath filed a complaint at the Police Station, original Road, alleging that before going to west Bengal he left his motor-cycle bearing registration No. Hrg, 3248 with his friend Aytar Kishan, resident of Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, that the accused Ranjit Kumar who is a relative of his and was residing in Ballabhgarh, District Gurgaon went to Avtar Kishan and obtained possession of the motor cycle by misrepresenting that the motor-cycle was required by him (complainant) at Faridabad, that on 10th September 1975, he came to know about the above fact and on that he went to the accused and asked for the motor-cycle but he refused to give the motor cycle.(2) On the above report the police registered a case under Sections 400 and 420 of the Indian penal Code against Ranjit Kumar.(3) On 18th March, 1978 Ranjit Kumar made an application to the Court alleging therein that the motor cycle in question was attached by the Assistant Coll...
Bihari Lal and ors. Vs. Union of India, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi84; ILR1978Delhi415
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The admission of this writ petition depends on the applications of section 17(1) of the Land Aquisition Act (herein called the Act), to the facts pleaded in the petition, the reply to the show cause sotice and the rejoinder. On 16th December, 1977 notifications under sections 4, 6 and 17(1) of the Act were issued by the Administrator of Delhi in respect of certain lands including field No. 401 belonging to petitioner No. 1. Argument of Shri J. M. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners, was confined to field No. 401. The validity of the notification under section 17(1) alone was canvassed in the long oral argument, though initially the prayer in the writ petition included the quashing of the notifications under sections 6 and 6 of the Act also. The reasons advanced for the invalidity of the order passed by the Administrator under section 17(1) requiring immediate possession to be taken of the land without hearing objections to the section 4 notification under sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›