Delhi Court May 1980 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1980 Page 2 of about 43 results (0.018 seconds)Surinder Kumar Vs. Prem Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT255; 1980(1)DRJ170; 1980RLR621
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This order will dispose of two revision petitions, (1) No. 157 of 1980, and (2) No. 158 of 1980. (2) The landlord filed a petition under s. 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter the Act) against the tenant for his eviction on 31.7.1979. The Controller directed that the summons on the respondent tenant be served in the Form given in the Schedule Iii to the Act. The summons was, according to the tenant, served on him on 16.10.1979; and according to the landlord, on October 6, 1979. One more summons as required by law was sent under the registered cover. The cover bears the endorsement 'not met' on October 4,5,6,8 and 10. No. A.D. card was received back but the tenant maintained that he got the registered cover on 12.10.1979.(3) The tenant appeared on 24.10.1979. and moved an application for leave to defend the petition Reply was filed on 14.11.79. According to the summons the tenant is required to appear within fifteen days of the service of the summons an...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Kapur Vs. Sulakshna Malhan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT62
Harish Chandra, J.(1) This is a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dated 22nd February, 1980 of Shri K.S. Gupta, Additional Distt. Judge, Delhi, dismissing an appeal against the order of Shri O.P. Gonge, Sub-Juage 1st Class, Delhi dated 6th September, 1979 whereby he granted an interim injunction restraining the petitioners from obstructing the respondents in the construction of the first-floor of house No. S-231, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, till the disposal of the Suit. (2) In view of the extremely limited scope of judicial review under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure it does not appear necessary to go into the details of facts leading to the passing of the impugned order. Even so, briefly recapitulated, the facts are as under: (3) Shrimati Sulakshna Malhan, the first respondent before me, entered into a lease-deed with Shri Shashi K.apur, the petitioner before me, in September or October 1976 in respect of premises S-231, P...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. Brij Nath Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT313
Harish Chandra, J.(1) Shri Brij Nath Sharma, respondent filed a petition for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground contained in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioner, though permanently residing in the premises in dispute at Shahdara Delhi had been posted for work at Agra and, thereforee, the respondent gave two addresses of the petitioner in the eviction petition itself, i.e., the address at Delhi as well as the address at Agra. (2) On 20th May, 1977 the learned Additional Rent Controller ordered issue of summons under Schedule Iii of the Act, turnableonl2thJuly, 1977. The summons were issued on 23rd May 1977. (3) From the record it appears that whereas summons were taken through the process server at Delhi, the same were sent by registered post at Agra. The summons were not sent through the process-server at Agra and through registered post at Delhi. (4) On 31st May, 1977 when the process server called at the residence of the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sharma Vs. M.L. Sawhney and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT92; 1980RLR523
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The facts of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution are that the petitioner took the house in dispute on rent of Rs. 1100.00 p. m. for a period of 2 years on January 25, 1975, after the permission from the Rent Controller for a limited tenancy was obtained. This limited tenancy was extended by another two years on the basis of a similar permission. At the end of the second term, the landlord-respondent moved an application on May 10, 1979 before the Controller under Order 21 Rule 11 for recovery of possession. Several objections were raised by the tenant against eviction. The main stand now taken by him is that the limited tenancy was fradulent and obtained by misrepresentation and that the petitioner was not a limited tenant but a tenant who cannot be evicted otherwise than on the grounds stated in the proviso to Sub-section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein the Act). (2) During the recovery proceedings the landlord made an application on Jul...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranjilal and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i and An ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1982]135ITR530(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. On 13th March, 1974, the present writ petition was filed under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality and validity of searches and seizures effected under s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961, at premises belonging to the petitioners who are father and son. According to the petition as originally filed, two warrants of authorisation were issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax/Director of Inspection to carry out simultaneous searches at the office and residential premises of the petitioners. These warrants were shown to the petitioners at their place of residence at 57, Jor Bagh, New Delhi. Searches and seizures were effected at Akash Deep Building, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg and Uphar Cinema at Green Park Market. In searches at 57, Jor Bagh, on 18th December, 1973, which continued up to 10.00 P. M. currency notes valued at more than Rs. 1,00,000, silver utensils worth Rs. 2,800 and jewellery of more than Rs. 42,000 belonging to S...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Nalva Vs. Allied Metal and Engineering Works
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT365; 1980RLR715
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The respondents filed a suit against the petitioner under 0.37 G.P.C., for recovery of the amount dut to on two pronotes, one for Rs. 17,000.00 of November 15, 1974, and the other of Rs. 8,500.00 of of June 23, 1975. The defendant admitted the receipt of the amount paid through cheques and his signatures on the alleged pronotes but his defense was :- (1) that the amount was paid as remuneration for his consultancy and other services regarding design and production; (2) that he had signed some blank papers for accounting and income- tax purposes, on which the pronotes had been forged; and (3) that the adhesive stamps on the pronotes had not been duly cancelled and thereforee the pronotes should be deemed to be unstamped and the suit should fail. (2) A preliminary issue was framed on the third plea on November 28, 1978. No evidence was led by either side. Arguments were heard on January 10, 1979. The learned Addl. District Judge held that 'the pronotes were duly cancelle...
Tag this Judgment!Puran Chand Vs. the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT7
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This common Judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1100, 1290, 1565, 1618, 1619, 1715 of 1979 and 14 d 15 of 1980. (2) The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in his letter dated October 18, 1962, mooted a proposal to license the trade of transporting goods by trucks by resort to the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S. 417 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), because (1) the loading and unloading of trucks is generally done on public streets causing extreme inconvenience to the users of the roads and pavements; (2) the constant plying of trucks on narrow roads such as Naya Bazar is a nuisance to the public; (3) traffic is obstructed and there is danger of the passersby being run over when trucks take turn in the narrow lanes; a few fatal accidents have already taken place; (4) most of transport companies stock their goods on the pavements in front of the offices and godowns of the compani...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Devi and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT221
M. L. Jain, J. (1) The facts of this writ petition are that a double storeyed house bearing Municipal Nos. 375 to 379 an evacuee property of Teliwara, Shahdara was acquired under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter the Act). It was in the occupation of eight persons: (1)Ramji Das (Since then left the place) (2)Arura Ram (Since then dead-L. R. widow and two sons) (3)Khem Singh (Since then dead-L. R. his widow) (4)Asa Singh (Since then dead-L. R. his widow) (5)KidarNath (6)Mohan Lal (7)GyanGhand (8)Mehta Ram Kishan(2) Out of these occupants, Khem Singh and Kidar Nath were nonclaimants. The Managing Officer and the Valuation Officer recommended to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner that the property could be divided vertically into two equal portions, one, valued at Rs. 9832.00 and the other at Rs. 9208.00 portion No. 1 was in occupation of (1) Mehta Ram Kishan (2) Mohan Lal (3) (a) Ramji Dass and (b) Kidar Nath. Portion No. 2 was in occupa...
Tag this Judgment!The Prabhat Manufacturing Industrial Cooperative Society Vs. Banwari L ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi1330
Harish Chandra, J.(1) This is a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the decree and judgment dated 24th May, 1979 in R.C.A. No. 40/79 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby he affirmed and upheld the decree and judgment passed by a Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi in Suit No. 318/77 dated 22nd September, 1978, decreeing the eviction' of the appellant.(2) The memorandum of appeal sets out as many as eight questions claimed- to be 'substantial questions of law'. The' only point at issue is whether or not the suit property is 'premises' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 because on that will depend whether the bar of Section 50 of the Act comes into play and the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred. At the time of admission, Yogeshwar Dayal J. had formulated the substantial question of law as the interpretation of the allotment order Ex. Public Witness 2/1 dated 28th March, 1949.(3) The relevant fact...
Tag this Judgment!ishar Das Sawhney Vs. S.C. Mahindru
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT231; 1980(1)DRJ174; 1980RLR662
Harish Chandra, J.(1) The revision arise from the order of 5th Add. Rent Controller, Delhi, dt. 7.12.78 whereby he dismissed eviction petition as he did not find any element of need in the claim of the landlord to suit premises.(2) The only point at issue is whether landlord 'required' the premises within the meaning of that word in S. 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (3) Petitioner set up a case that the premises are required for (A)himself and his wife. (b) his son, daughter-in-law and 2 grand children, (c) his 2 other sons who were living out side India and visit off and on, along with their families, (d) his married daughter who has 3 children and who visits off and on; And his present accommodation consisted of, (i) 4 rooms on the ground floor, & (ii) one barsati on the 2nd floor. (4) Petitioner said that he was using one room as a drawing room, another room as a dining room leaving only 2 bed rooms of small size. Tenant urged that the accommodation now with the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!