Delhi Court November 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 16 of about 163 results (0.012 seconds)Lekh Ram Khari Vs. Krishan Kumar Vohra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT584
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 12th October, 1994 passed by Shri S.L. Bhayana, Additional Districts Judge, whereby the learned Judge restrained the appellant, his wife, son, etc. from interfering with the respondent carrying out repairs in the tenanted premises bearing No. WP-552, Village Wazirpur, Delhi-52 and from removing the debris left by the Appellant. The respondent was further permitted to carry out the repair of the entire tenanted premises including the roof and the walls which had been damaged. Respondent was permitted to remove the debris and offer it to the appellant. In the event of appellant not accepting it, the respondent was free to dispose of the same. (2) The relevant facts as per the Appellant are :- (I)The respondent had initially taken on rent three rooms on the ground floor of property No. WP-552, Village Wazirpur, Delhi-52 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000.00. An additional room was let out @ Rs. 900.00 per month, with total re...
Tag this Judgment!Leila Walla Vs. Kartar Kaur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996RLR67
Arm Kumar, J. (1) This is tenant's petition challenging the order of the Arc dt.31094 whereby the Arc refused to grant leave to contest the eviction petition to the petitioner herein and passed an eviction order regarding the tenancy premises. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent landlady u/S. 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) on the ground that she is a widow. The tenancy premises was let out by her husband. After the death of her husband, she became the sole owner of the property. Further, it was pleaded that the landlady is residing on the first floor of the premises. She required the tenancy premises which is on ground floor for her residence. The landlady claimed to be seventy-one years old in May 1993 when the eviction petition was filed and she stated that she is suffering from various ailments including heart disease and she was under medical advice that she should not climb stairs. She also pleaded that she had suffered multiple injuries and a fracture ...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhbir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT711
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This is a petition filed against the order of dismissal dated 6.3.1986 passed by the respondents as well as order passed on 28.5.1995 passed in appeal by the Deputy Inspector General of the Railway Protection Force. The petitioner was charged with running a diary consisting of 12 Buffalos and two cows without the prior approval of the Competent Authority of the Railways on the ground that such act was likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his official duties. The enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report dated 16.10.1985 framing the charge was placed before the appropriate authority. Pursuant to the enquiry report, the service of the petitioner was terminated. (2) Mr. Anil Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged that the charge framed of running a diary does not fall and come within the ambit of Rule-16 (2) of the Railway Service and Conduct Rules (hereinafter called as 'Rules'). Sub-rule (2) of Rule-16 of the Rules is as follows - '...
Tag this Judgment!Netra Pal Vs. Amarat Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)669; 60(1995)DLT894
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Mr. Netrapal has assailed the order of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, (in short the Act). He has challenged the impugned order primarily on the grounds that the Competent Authority failed to consider the fact that the respondent landlady had not pleaded nor proved the means and status of the petitioner. In the absence of the same permission under Section 19 of the Act could not to have been granted. (2) In order to appreciate the challenge raised by the petitioner the brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2, landlady Smt. Kaushalya Devi sought permission from the Competent Authority to evict the petitioner from her two shops given on rent, on the grounds of; (i) non payment of rent; and (ii) for subletting, assigning or (otherwise parting with possession of shop bearing Municipal No. 3142, Mohalla Dassan, Behind Chawn Bazar, Delhi, unauthorisedly and illegally. Her petition was contested by the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Parvati Devi Vs. Mahender Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996RLR64
Arm Kumar, J. (1) The petitioner filed an eviction petition on the ground contained in S. 14(l)(e) read with S. 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) on 5.6.84. The respondent is stated to be tenant with respect to two rooms, one kitchen on the first floor and a barsati on the second floor with common use of W.C. etc. forming part of property no. 296/4. Than Singh Nagar, New Delhi. The case of the petitioner landlady is that she requires the premises for her own residence and also for the residence of members of her family dependent on her for that purpose and that she has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Leave to contest the eviction petition was granted. The respondent tenant contested the eviction petition. He filed his w/s wherein apart from disputing the ownership of the petitioner of the property in suit, the tenant denied the bona fide requirement of the petitioner qua the tenancy premises. Another plea taken by the tenant was that the petition was ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Chander Gulati Vs. Kanta Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996(36)DRJ654
Arun Kumar, J. (1) This is tenant's revision petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment of the Additional Controller, Delhi dated 5th September 1991 whereby the Additional Controller passed an eviction order in favor of the respondent landlady regarding the suit premises under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. By the impugned judgment the Addl. Controller disposed of two eviction petitions. Two petitions were filed by the respondent landlady because there were two tenancies with respect to two portions of the same property bearing No.E-357, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. The petitioner tenant is common in both the cases. One petition was regarding a room on the ground floor (backside) of the property while the other petition was filed with respect to accommodation comprising of barsati (second floor) having one big room, kitchen, latrine and bath and a small store. (2) The cas...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanraj Gupta Vs. Savitri Malhotra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ551
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed the above suit on 2nd August, 1985 for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the suit property bearing house No.J-III/67, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and that the defendant No.1 did not have any right to take possession of any portion of the said house in execution of the decree passed in Suit No.275/67. The plaintiff had also filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Execution No.103/81 objecting to the execution of the decree on the same grounds on which the present suit has been filed. Earlier objections were filed by the plaintiff to an application under Order 21 Rule 97 filed by the decree holder and the said objections were dismissed by this Court on 18th November, 1985. Ex-parte order of injunction was passed by this Court in this suit on 9th December, 1985. It appears that the said order was obtained by not disclosing to the Court that objections of the plaintiff had been dismissed on 18th November, 198...
Tag this Judgment!Anwar Elahi Vs. Vinod Misra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)576; 60(1995)DLT752; 1995(35)DRJ341
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) By this order I propose to dispose of the application filed by one Mr.Basant Kamal Meattle for vacation of the order dated 25th September, 1995 and for permission to the applicant to complete the building stated to be in the final stages on the plot of land bearing No.465, Sector 15-A, Noida, Uttar Pradesh as also the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. (2) The facts in short which have resulted in the filing of the application are that the defendants are stated to have entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid plot of land to the plaintiff and a formal agreement was executed between the parties on or around 14th October, 1986 which is stated to have been back dated to 7th October, 1986. A total sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 had been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, out of a total sale consideration of Rs.7.50,000.00 . It is alleged in the plaint that in spite of repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendants were not fulfillling...
Tag this Judgment!A.F. Ferguson and Co. Vs. Lalita Khanna
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)757; 1995(35)DRJ499
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated September 29,1995. whereby the applications filed by the defendants for recall of the order dated September 28,1994 by virtue of which is 8012 of 1992 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated March 4, 1992 and is 10593 of 1992 seeking stay of the execution proceedings, were dismissed for want of prosecution. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: (2) The respondent is an owner of Flat No.6H on the 6th floor of a building known as 'Hansalaya' situated on 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The premises were taken on lease by the appellant, a partnership firm, at a monthly rental of Rs.7782.50, with effect from May 16,1977 for five years. However, the lease deed was executed between the parties on February 13, 1981. According to the lease deed the lease was renewable for a further term of five years. This was as per sub clause (b) of clause 4 of the lease deed. The said ...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kohli Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT81; 1995(35)DRJ541
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) This order will dispose of the application filed by the defendant under Order 14 Rule 5 for amendment of issues.(2) In the scheme of redevelopment of Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi the plaintiff, who was the owner and in possession of house No.A-62, Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi had been offered an alternative plot which was subsequently cancelled by Delhi Development Authority. Against the alleged wrongful cancellation of the allotment of alternative plot, a petition being C.W.P. No.2096/86 was filed in the High Court of Delhi and by order dated 16th December, 1987, Delhi Development Authority was directed to allot a flat to the plaintiff and give its possession preferably within two months. A further direction was given by the Court to Delhi Development Authority on 29th September, 1989. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Delhi Development Authority without any notice demolished his house bearing No.A-62, Hudson Line and also damaged the goods of the ...
Tag this Judgment!