Rajasthan Court January 1976 Judgments
Bhanwarlal and ors. Vs. Nathmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj137
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This is the defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment based on personal necessity.2. The demised premises out of which the defendant was sought to be ejected is situated in Naya Bazar, Ajmer. The learned Munsiff, Ajmer after framing issues and recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by his judgment and decree dated November 25, 1972. In appeal the said judgment and decree were affirmed. The aggrieved tenant has filed this appeal.3. During the pendency of this second appeal in this Court the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred, to as 'Act No. XVII of 1950') was amended by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 (hereinafter termed as 'Ordinance No. 26 of 1975').4. The learned counsel fop the appellant has urged that in view of the amendment of Section 14 of the Act No. XVII of 1950 the decre...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas and ors. Vs. Kanmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN75
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This is the defendant tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment based on personal necessity.2. The demised premises out of which the defendant was sought to be ejected is situated in Naya Bazar, Ajmer. The learned Munsiff, Ajmer after framing issues and recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the argument deceased the suit in favour of the plaintiff by his judgment and decree dated November 25, 1972 In appeal the said judgment & decree were affirmed. The aggrieved tenant has filed this appeal.3. During the pendency of this second appeal in this Court the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as ''Act No. XVII of 1950') was amended by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 (hereinafter termed as 'Ordinance No. 26 of 1975).4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that in view of the amendment of Section 14 of the Act No. XVII of 1950 the decrees ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhag Chand Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)71
D.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties I am in complete agreement with the learned Member of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') that the petitioner committed gross and deliberate mis-representation in the present case and the grant of permit nude in favour of the petitioner was, therefore, rightly revoked by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTA').2. The petitioner applied for the grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on Bhadra-Bhatukala route and when his aforesaid application crime up for consideration before the RTA on May 5, 1975 the petitioner represented that he was a displaced operator and that he had a ready vehicle of 1962 model, bearing registration No. RJK 3554 Another applicant, Yaseon Khan also represented before the RTA that he had a ready vehicle of 1962 model. Applying a uniform standard that permits be granted to displaced operators ownin...
Tag this Judgment!Hafiz Mohammad Vs. Banshidhar Nandkishore
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj121
S.N. Modi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the decree-holder appellant filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent on 24-10-1961 in respect of a shop fully described in para 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff sought eviction on two grounds: firstly, that he required the premises reasonably and bona fide for his own business and secondly, that the defendant-tenants had committed three defaults in payment of rent within a period of 18 months. The defendants resisted the suit and filed their written statement on 18-1-1962 denying all allegations made against them. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed issues on 30-7-1962 and adjourned the case to 1-8-1963 for plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff landlord was examined on 1-8-1963. He examined two more witnesses on 4-12-1963; thereafter closed his evidence and the case was adjourned for defendants' evidence. Several adjournments were sought by the defe...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Bhargava Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)31
D.P. Gupta, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has prayed that a writ of quo- warranto be issued declaring that the respondent No 2, Shri Birsain Jain, is an usurper of the office of the Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in the Rajasthan Canal Project and that he should be ousted from the aforesaid office.2. The facts which give rise to this writ petition lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the Rajasthan Canal Project and was appointed on that post after selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The respondent No. 2, Shri Birsain Jain, holds a degree of B. Tech. (Hons) in Agricultural Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the Rajasthan Canal Project (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.C.P.') in the year 1964. He was then promoted as an Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in the R.C.P. in a temporary or ad-hoc capacity by the order of the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwarlal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)43
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The short question which requires consideration in this rather longish writ petition is as to whether the respondents Nos. 4 to 13 were erroneously promoted on the posts of Vice Principals or Principals of Degree Colleges in the Educational Service of the State of Rajasthan in preference to the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is senior to the respondents Nos. 4 to 13 in the cadre of Lecturer of Degree Colleges and a; such he was entitled to be promoted as a Vice-Principal or Principal of a Degree C liege earlier than the aforesaid respondents. So far as the respondents Nos. 8 to 13 are concerned, the seniority assigned to them in the category of Lecturers of Degree and Postgraduate Classes has already been set aside by this Court in the case of Gopal Behari Mathur v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No 1519 of 1970, decided on September 1, 1975 The orders passed by the State Government in favour of the respondents Nos. 8 to 1...
Tag this Judgment!Mehta Mansuk Lal Vs. Modi Fateh Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)69
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This is the defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment of premises situated in Partapgarh.2. The ejectment was sought on the ground of reasonable, bonafide and personal necessity as well as default in payment of rent. The appellant has filed an application on October 27, 1975 praying that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 13-A of the Act No. XVII of 1950 as Amended by the provisions of Ordinance No. 26 of 1875 He has further urged that the judgment and decree of the first appellate court is liable to be set aside as it is based on the eiound of striking put the defence for nonpayment of rent, fifth the arties further prayed that both of them are entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 as amended by the Ordinance No. 26 of 1975.3. A, perusal of the above mentioned section reveals that the effect of amendment is that previously if the landlord required the demised premi...
Tag this Judgment!Ladu Ram Vs. Smt. Rukma Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN32
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Shri Ganganagar dated 20th February, 1975, whereby be awarded maintenance allowance of Rs. 250/- per month to the non-petitioner Smt. Rukma Devi.2. The facts of the case, in brief, relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the applicant was married Smt (sic) Devi about 40 years back. Out of this wedlock two daughters were born to Smt. Rukma Devi. But, as no son was born, the application married a second wife Smt. (sic) Smt. Rukma Devi continued to live with the applicant even after his marriage with Smt. Dikha for some time and, then she left living with the petitioner, and started living with her parents Smt. Rukma Devi then moved an application under Section 488, Cr.P.C. Old.) on 16-5-1959, which was allowed and a maintenance allowance of Rs. 200/- per month was fixed Later on, the petitioner obtained a decree of divorce against Smt Rukma Devi on 4-12-1971. He then ap...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Khila Ram Jawahar Lal Vs. Smt. Ghisi Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)68
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This is the defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment in respect of a shop situated in the city of Kota.2. The ejectment was sought on the ground of reasonable bonafide and personal necessity as well as default in payment of rent.3. The appellant has filed an application dated October 22, 1975 praying that the decree passed by the lower court may, be set aside keeping in view the recent amendment of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.4. A perusal of the amended provisions of Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 as amended by Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 reveals that the effect of the amendment is that while previously if a landlord required the demeaned premise's reasonably arid bonafide for the use and occupation for himself or for high family he could obtain a decree for the eviction of a tenant but after the amendment the court will have no further examine the question ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishansingh Bhati Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)62
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was initially employed as a Male Nurse in the former State of Jodhpur on September 1, 1948 and was confirmed on the said pest with effect from March 1, 1949. After the formation of the United State of Rajasthan, a cadre of Male Nurse-cum-Compounder Grade I was created with the pay scale of Rs. 15-05-200 in the year 1951 and persons who had passed the matriculation examination or its equivalent and had undergone our years & training and had passed the B.P.N.A. or equivalent examination and were employed in a Class I Hospital in he Stale were entitled to promotion as Male Nurse cum-Compounder Grade I with effect from the date they fulfilled the aforesaid qualifications. The petitioner passed the P.N.R.C., examination, which is equivalent to B.P.N.A. examination in March, 1953 and also passed the matriculation examination in the year 1955. By then the petitioner had also undergone four years training as be hid actually started working as a male nurse with e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »