Delhi Court October 1979 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.
Gurditta Mal Vs. Bal Sarup
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi216a; 17(1980)DLT172; 1980RLR1
Sachar, J. (1) The question of law that has been referred to the larger bench is whether any time limit is laid down for a tenant to apply for leave to contest the application for eviction filed against him under Chapter Iii A of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be called the Act).(2) The case of the petitioner/tenant is that there is no time limit laid down by the Act within which the tenant is compelled to file an application for leave to contest. The case of the landlord/respondent on the other side is that the time within which an application for leave to contest has to be filed by the tenant is 15 days from the service of the summons on the tenant of an application for eviction filed against him under Section 25B of the Act.(3) Clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act provides for a landlord to obtain an order for the recovery of possession from a tenant on the ground of bonafide need. By Parliament Act 18 of 1976 Section 14A was added by whi...
Balram Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT216; 1980RLR324
M.S. Joshi, J. (1) Aggrieved by the order of his conviction and sentence dated 29.4.1974, Balram Singh Chauhan preferred appeal No. 155 of 1974. In the same manner appeal No. 158 of 1974 was filed by Ravinder Kumar. Because the two appeals arise from one order the same are being disposed of through this judgment together. (2) The case of the prosecution may be stated briefly in the following terms. (3) One R. C. Misra, a military employee, was posted at Delhi in September, 1966. He was expecting his transfer out of the town and, thereforee, decided to build a house at this place before leaving it. For a house he needed a plot and for buying a plot he contacted Messrs Chauhan Property Dealers operating in Amar Colony. Baliam Singh and Ravinder Kumar represented to him at the office of the said firm that they belonged to Mainpuri district from which Misra himself hailed and his confidence was in this manner won. They showed to Misra and his wife plot No. A-IV/36 in Amar Colony and told t...
Haridev Shourie Vs. Madan Mohan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi59; 1980RLR247
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant No. 4 for setting aside all proceedings held up to the auction of the property held on 25-3-1979. It is stated in the application that a preliminary decree dated 20th April, 1978 was passed by this Court and the partition of the properties was ordered by a further Preliminary decree dated 7th December, 1978. This court had passed an order for the sale of the property No. 2W/7, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi by public auction. The public auction was held on 25-3-1979. The said auction has not been confirmed by this Court. This application has been filed for permission to purchase the said property. (2) The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to Section 2 and 3 of the Partition Act and according to the learned counsel it is open to the co-sharers to apply for purchasing the property at any time till the sale is actually confirmed by this Court. For this propositi...
University of Delhi Vs. Vandana Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi716
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This is a Letters Patent Appeal by the University against the order of the learned single Judge by which he allowed the Writ Petition of the respondent and quashed the impugned order, dated 26-10-1977 by which the respondent had been disqualified for passing the B.A. (Pass) Part Ii examination held in April, 1977 and had also been debarred from appearing in any examination of the University for a further period of one academic year, i.e., 1977-78. (2) Ordinance Xa framed by the University deals with disorderly conduct and use of unfair means in the examination and the procedure to deal with such cases. Clause l(d) defines the use of dishonest or unfair means in the examination to include: (i) assisting in any manner whatsoever any other candidate in answering the question paper during the course of the examination; (ii) taking assistance from any other candidate or any other person or from any' book, paper, notes or other material in answering the question paper ...
Vinoo Bhagat Vs. Anita Rewal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1979
Reported in: 1980RLR245
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Mrs. Pushpa Tandon made a will dated 30th August, 1971. She died on 29th August, 1977. Mrs. Anita Rewal made the petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for the grant of the probate with an affidavit of valuation of the property and liabilities detailed in Annexures 'A' and 'B' attached to the petition. On 18th May, 1979 the Probate was ordered to be granted to her. The petitioner filed the Estate Duty Clearance Certificate and the necessary court-fees. The Registry prepared the Probate and also annexed details of property as Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the said probate. Mr. Bhagat, counsel for the petitioner states that the Probate prepared by the Registry is not in accordance with Section 289 read with Schedule Vi of the Act. Under Section 276 of the Act in the application for the grant of the Probate the petitioner is required to state the amount of assets which are likely to come to the petitioner's hands only f...
Jecronimo Francisco Sacrafamilla Eric D'souza Vs. Florence Martha D'so ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi275; 16(1979)DLT347
Prakash Narain, J.(1) The petitioner and the respondent are Christians professing the Roman Catholic Faith. They were married on February 20, 1971 in New Delhi. After marriage they resided together for a week in Delhi and then went to Goa to the house of the petitioner's parents. In Goa they stayed for about a month and then returned to Delhi. The petitioner had a house in Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and the parties lived there. (2) According to the petitioner the marriage was never consummated on account of a mental blockade which the respondent had. She allegedly told the petitioner that she cannot permit the petitioner to have sexual intercourse with her as she would suffer pain and was afraid of that. According to the petitioner he tried his best to persuade the respondent to have normal conjugal relations but failed in his attempts. The attitude of the respondent towards leading a normal married life was then allegedly discussed by the parties with the respondent's mother. She i...
Bansi Lal Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1979
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi715
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The facts of this petition are that the Central Government by a Notification dated May 28, 1977, constituted a Commission comprising Mr. Justice J. C. Shah, a former Chief Justice of India, under S. 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter the Act). The terms of the Commission were broadly to inquire into the facts and circumstances relating to subversion of lawful conventions, processes and well-established administrative procedures and practices, abuse of authority, misuse of powers, excesses and malpractices, misuse of powers of arrest and detention, indiscriminate, high handed or unauthorised demolition of property during the emergency and into specific instances of mal-treatment of and atrocities on persons arrested or detained, their relatives and close associates and' of compulsion and use of force in the implementation of family planning programme. The inquiry was to cover the acts of public servants and also the conduct of other individuals who m...
Gian Devi Vs. Jiwan Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1979
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT197; 1980RLR28
M.L. Jain, J.(1) Respondents after terminating tenancy of their tenant Wasti Ram by notice, filed an application on 5.9.70 for eviction under S. 14(1) of Delhi Rent Act from shop No. 20, New Market West Patel Nagar on grounds : (1) that tenant has sub-let the premises on 1.2.70 without obtaining consent in writing, (2) that premises were let for residence but tenant changed the use to commercial purpose, (3) that he has caused substantial damage to property by converting veranda into room and by fixing an iron door in the front portion and raising a brick wall in the back portion, (4) that the petitioners required the premises bona fide for residence, and (5) that the tenant had not paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 1 10 per month and had only paid at the rate of Rs. 108 per month. The Addl. Rent Controller by his order of May 19, 1975 held that the receipt of notice of termination was admitted, and that the premises were initially let out only for commercial purpses. He rejected the co...
Karam Chand Vs. Oma Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1979
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT221; 1980RLR332
R. Sachar, J.(1) This is second appeal by the tenant against' the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal by which he allowed the appeal of the landlord-respondent and passed an order or eviction against the appellant on the grounds covered by clauses (d) and (h) of proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The appellant was admittedly a tenant in a room located on the ground floor of house No. 7048 on a rental of Rs. 61- p.m. The present premises were purchased by the respondent sometime in 1970. An application for eviction was brought on the ground that the premises were let for residential purpose and that neither the tenant nor his family has been residing therein for six months before the filing of the application and also on the ground that the appellant had acquired vacant possession of a house No. 22 F.J.J. Colony. The case of the tenant however was that the premises had been let out for commercial purpose and thereforee ne...
Girdhari Lal Vs. Abdul Jalil
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1979
Reported in: 1980RLR91
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The facts of this second appeal and the cross-objection (C. M. P. 1497/78) are that Shri Abdul Jalil owns the house in dispute in Nai Sarak, Delhi. Girdhari Lal was a tenant in the first and second floors of the said house since 1954 but his tenancy was terminated in March 1973. and he was sought to be ejected on three grounds out of which only one that is of sub-letting had eventually survived. It was alleged that Girdhari Lal sublet the premises to one Hari Singh in the first floor and Kunj Behari Lal in the second floor. As regards Hari Singh, the learned Addl. Rent Controller held that he was not a sub-tenant but was only living with the tenant as a friend. And since Kunj Behari Lal stated that he had left the premises but joined again a sub-tenant of Girdhari Lal in 1953, it was held that he became a sub-tenant after June 9, 1952. This subletting being without any written permission of the landlord, an order for eviction was passed in favor of the landlord on Augu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »