Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN873
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is a revision application by the plaintiff against an order of the District Judge, Pali.2. The plaintiff let out the shop in suit to the defendant on 24-6-1949. He brought the present suit for eviction on the allegation that the shop was newly constructed and the construction was completed on 1.6-1963 so that the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 were not applicable for a period of seven years under Section 2(e). Under the terms of the contractual tenancy the defendant bad agreed to vacate the premises whenever he was asked to do so However, plaintiff served a notice terminating the tenancy with effect from 24 9 1967.3. The defendant denied the knowledge of the fact whether the shop was newly constructed and whether its construction was completed on 1-6-1963 He also denied that the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1650 were not applicable. However, the plaint was so framed tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj120; 1972()WLN926
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a tenant's second appeal directed against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, ordering the tenant's eviction from the suit premises.2. The eviction from the suit Premises was sought on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the landlord. The tenant resisted the suit. This gave rise to the following four issues:--1. Whether the plaintiff has bona fide and reasonable necessity for the house and it is necessary for him to get the house evicted? 2. Whether the defendant is a habitual defaulter? 3. Whether the expenses for light and water were included in the rent? 4. Whether the notice is invalid? An application was made by the tenant in the trial Court for the determination of the rent and by its order dated 17-2-1969 the learned Munsiff determined the rent at Rs. 1,090/-. The tenant was directed to pay this rent as also the future rent. However, as the tenant had only paid Rs. 1,000/- and not the full ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj187; 1972()WLN1052
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Shri Jwala Prasad Sharma, erstwhile Chairman of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the corporation'), which has been superseded by the State of Rajas than by a Notification No. F. (7) (3) (3) Pari/72 dated 20th May, 1972, marked Annexure 5 on the record. Since the petitioner has challenged the validity of the said notification and has prayed that it may be set aside, it would be proper to reproduce this notification in extenso:--'GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN Home (Group VII) Department No. F. 7 (3) (3) Pari/72, Dated the 20th May, 1972. NOTIFICATION Whereas the State Government issued a notice under Section 38 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Central Act LXIV of 1950) to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation on 18th April, 1972 to show cause why it should not be superseded; AND whereas the State Government after consideri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN882
B.P. Beri, J.1. Those two applications under Section 15 (3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') are made to this Court for requiring the Board of Revenue to refer an identical question, though for different assessment periods, for an answer. We are disposing them together.Application No. 106/72:2. M/s. Kanak Brothers, Mehta Market, Jodhpur, is a registered dealer under the Act and carries on the business of sale of confectionery, biscuits, etc. in Mehta Market, Jodhpur. It is a registered partnership. For the accounting period between 1.4.62 to 31.3.63 the dealer war assessed by the Commercial taxes Officer, Jodhpur. The dealer preferred an appeal and the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Udaipur by its order dated 25.7 1966 accepted the appeal holding that the articles sold by the assessee were not eatables as defined in the higher rate classification but were chargeable at general rate. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the assessment o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj141; 1972()WLN931
Kan Singh, J. 1. The second appeal before me is by a tenant and raises two questions: (1) regarding the waiver of a notice for termination of tenancy and the consequent subsistence of the contractual tenancy; and (2) about the bona fide personal necessity of the landlord to get possession of the premises.2. Kailash Prasad, plaintiff-respondent, brought a suit for ejectment against the defendant-tenant on the basis of personal necessity and default in payment of rent. The landlord had served a notice for the termination of the tenancy on 23-4-1967 intimating the tenant that the tenancy shall stand terminated from 31-5-1967, Apart from this it was averred by the landlord that the defendant-tenant had not paid him rent for the period 1-7-1967 to 31-1-1968 and he was therefore, liable to be evicted on this ground as well. The receipt of notice for termination of the tenancy was admitted by the defendant-tenant, but he contended that the notice had been waived by the landlord by his accepti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1075
C.M. Lodha, J.1. Two ghastly murders of father and son, namely Siremal and Bandmal took place in their shop situated in village Undri, District Barmer, on the night intervening 21st and 22nd June, 1968. The culprit or culprits, as the case may be, after committing the said murders, put the shop on fire and decamped with the valuables lying therein. The crime was detected early in the morning when the shop was found enveloped in flames and attracted the notice of the villagers who went to the spot and tried to extinguish it. A first information report was lodged by one Mahinga on 22nd June, 1968 at about 8. a.m. at Police Station Gura Malani situated at a distance of about 16 miles from the place of occurrence, namely village Undri. In the course of investigation, the Police arrested the two accused Manga and Gulaba on 23rd October, 1969 in village Kasumba in the State of Gujarat. On interrogating the accused, Manga gave information on 26th October, 1969 recorded as Ex. P-23 which led t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj150
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. This writ petition of Pannalal arises out of the following circumstances :Petitioner Pannalal had advanced a loan to one Ashraf All who after the partition of the country, migrated to Pakistan leaving behind him three house properties in the town of Ajmer. Petitioner had obtained a decree on 2nd August. 1948, of Rs. 4,000/- with 3 per cent interest against Ashraf Ali from the court of the Sub Judge. First Class, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 436 of 1948. On 12th of September 1949, the petitioner registered his third party claim with the Assistant Custodian of the erstwhile State of Ajmer for the payment of the decretal amount and the same was registered vide the letters of the Assistant Custodian (Annexure 2 and Annexure 3) dated 24th of July 1951 and 21st of September. 1951, respectively. Thereafter it so appears that the Assistant Custodian did not take any proceedings to pay off the claim of the petitioner as registered with him under Rule 22 of the Administration of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN1081
Kan Singh, J.1. The second appeal before me is by the Union of India and is directed against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge Ajmer dated 28-8-68 and raises a question about the validity of certain punishments imposed by the authorities of the Western Railway on the respondent B.S. Misra who was Clerk in Grade II and was officiating in Grade 1 at the relevant time His case was briefly this On 11. 7.60 he was officiating as a Clerk Grade I in the time scale of Rs. 80 5-120 -EB 8-200 -10-220 (PS) and was posted in the office of the Divisional Accounts Officer, Western Railway, Jaipur. He was under the control of the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (Traffic Accounts) Western Railway, Ajmer. As the plaintiff-respondent was arrested by the police in connection with the general strike by the staff of the Western Railway, he was placed under suspension. The plaintiff was prosecuted under the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance NO. 1 of 1960. However, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1973]92ITR558(Raj); 1972()WLN985
Joshi, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on behalf of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, praying that the Appellate Tribunal be directed to state the case and refer a question of law arising therefrom.2. Facts which are necessary for the disposal of this case may be stated in brief, Messrs. Bhanwarlal Sohanlal, the assessee, is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The assessee is a dealer in various grains. It filed return of income for the assessment year 1966-67.Along with its return a summarised trading account was also filed. According to the statement of trading account, the assessee, claimed shortage of 1,017 Kgs. in maize, 2,117 Kgs. in gram and 13,746 Kgs. in jowar on account of driage, handling and storage, etc., during the year of account-The shortage claimed by the assessee on the basis of the statements furnished by it was found to be reas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN972
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is an application by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 23-8-71 holding that the pauper appeal stood dismissed in accordance with the order 8-7-1971.2. The petitioners filed an application for leave to appeal as a pauper. The following order was passed on 1-4-71:We accordingly direct the petitioners to file an affidavit that they are unable to pay court fees on the excess amount of interest which is about Rs. 3,000/-. Two months time is allowed to file an affidavit and to pay court-fees on the balance if the petitioners wish to pursue their appeal with regard to the rest of the matter.3. They neither filed an affidavit nor filed the court-fees within the time allowed An application for extension of time was filed on 5-7-71 on which the following order was passed on 9-7-71:We allow six weeks' further time from 5-7-71 for paying court fees No further extension will be allowed. If court fees is not paid within time the whole appeal shall stand dis...
Tag this Judgment!