Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: animal disease control act 1961 chapter 1 preliminary Court: karnataka Page 10 of about 3,785 results (0.487 seconds)

M/S. Bhagyashree Combines, Bellary Vs. the District Magistrate, Bellar ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1998Kant328; 1998(4)KarLJ353

..... and such lease is a composite lease which fall outside the purview of the rent control act. the supreme court after examining the said case reversed the judgment and held that in the absence of projectors, amplifiers, screen and speakers which are ..... , amplifier, screen and projector. the question that arose for consideration was, whether what was laid out was a building within the meaning of the rent control act. the division bench of this court held that the lease was of a theatre building with furniture, moveable, machineries and equipments meant for running cinema theatre ..... the landlord, if such a possession is not otherwise statutorily protected under the law against even lawful eviction through court process, such as under the rent control act. 'lawful possession' is not litigious possession and must have some foundation in a legal right to possess the property.20. learned counsel for the appellant .....

Smt. Sundari Acharthi Vs. N. Shankara Bangera

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2002KAR4746; 2003(2)KarLJ181

..... . saldanha, j.1. the petitioner before me is the original tenant against whom a proceeding had been instituted under section 21(1)(h) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 by the respondent who was the then landlady. the trial court dismissed the suit principally because, the court was not satisfied with regard to the status of ..... that a period of one year is required to elapse before an application can be entertained, that it would only apply to proceedings that are instituted under this act and that this would have no application to the proceedings that have been instituted under the earlier statute. mr. shetty's submission was that the earlier section did ..... this principle, mr. rao, learned counsel who represents the petitioner submitted that the court would have to apply the provisions of section 27(2)(r) of the present act which reads as follows.--'27(2)(r) that the premises let are required whether in the same form or after reconstruction or rebuilding, by the landlord for occupation .....

Smt. Renukamma W/O Sri N.G. Keriyappa Vs. Sri Ramachandra Bhatta S/O S ...

Court : Karnataka

..... in the case of rukamoddia uastagirsab v. basawwa and ors. reported in air 1974 mys 46 it has been held that the court functioning under the rent control act, 1961 has to settle the jurisdictional fact namely the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties and is competent to decide even disputes relating to the title ..... challenged in any suit cannot be questioned by the tenant.31. as far as adjudication of the dispute regarding landlord-tenant relationship is concerned, the karnataka rent control act has not described any particular mode or form of creation of a relationship of landlord and tenant. however, in the absence of there being a landlord-tenant ..... owner of the schedule premises filed the eviction petition under section 21(1)(a), (h), (j) and (o) and section 21(c) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 in h.r.c. no. 3/93 before the prl.munsiff at sagar. according to her originally, the respondent had unauthorisedly constructed a thatched residential house in .....

C.N. Ramachandra Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1997Kant181

..... the respondent will pay rs.3500/-when he is taking possession under order of allotment. no doubt the rental that is determined under .section 8(4) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 as per proviso is subject to fixation of a fair rent under section 14 and it has so provided under the proviso to section 8(4). the operation of ..... rs. 3,500/- and not specifically either for premises or for fan or television etc. it became necessary for the rent controller to indicate the rental of the building and take an approximate estimate. he cannot be said to have, acted, in such acase, without jurisdiction. even if for a moment that might be an irregularity but in such a case i ..... am unable to take it as between, whether landlord himself does not bifurcate two types of charges and in the intimation only he clumsily indicates as the rental. it is open to the rent controller to do .....

Basavannappa Kotrappa and anr. Vs. Krishna Trading Co., Gadag

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1973Kant129; AIR1973Mys129; (1973)1MysLJ77

..... : 1958crilj814 (kanaiyalal v. indumati) the court considered the scope of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 24 of the bombay rents hotel and lodging house rates control act and observed that these provisions enabled the court to issue a mandate to the landlord to restore tie supply or the service before a specified date, the infringement of which ..... the contention it was observed as follows:--'there is not and cannot be any dispute before me that the munsiff functioning under the mysore house rent and accommodation control act is not an ordinary civil court of general jurisdiction, but a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, the scope of which is defined by the special ..... filed under section 50 of the mysore rent control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) against the order dated 13-9-1972 passed by the principal munsiff, gadag, in h. r. c. no. 28 of 1972 on i. a. no. i filed by the respondent under section 43 (3) of the act. the respondent in that application has prayed for .....

R. Vijendra and Etc. Vs. the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1988KAR1591; 1988(2)KarLJ8

..... the question of law that calls for decision by us reads thus : -'whether a usufructuary mortgagee is a landlord for purposes of part-ii of the karnataka rent control act, 1961?''2. the facts leading to the controversy may be recapitulated :the jurisdictional hrc revenue inspector, vide his report dated 24-8-1981, intimated the vacancy of premises ..... a usufructuary mortgagee from the definition of 'landlord'. it is a settled proposition that the rent control act is a restriction on the rights of the owner and those restrictions are to be reasonable. therefore, the language of the act will have to be understood in a manner befitting a reasonable restriction, which is sought to be ..... street, v.v. puram bangalore-4.thereafter the vacancy was notified by the house rent controller suo motu in hrc. alt. 209/81. a notice under s. 8(1)(a) of the karnataka rent control act, 196 1, (hereinafter referred to as the act), was also issued to smt. kousalya bai the owner of the premises. in the meanwhile .....

Pratap Singh and ors. Vs. Jaibunnisa

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1989Kant70

..... the petitions. petitioners claim to be the owners, sought eviction of the respondents-tenants under various sub-clauses of s. 21(l) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 ('the act') alleging that the respondents were the lessees. the petitioners claim to be the descendants of one lachiramsing, whose grandfather was parwatsing. the premises were bits of ..... in the said court to decide the question of title while considering first proviso to s. 8(l) of the mysore house rent- & rent accommodation control act, 1957 (which was the predecessor to the present act, in' the old mysore area), justice somnath iyer (as he then was) observed in m. thammiah v. k. v. subba rao, (1964) ..... was observed therein that, 'absence of a provision similar to provision, s. 8(l) of the earlier act would not make any difference to the question, as to whether, the court functioning under the provisions of the rent control act, 1961 can decide the question of title when there is a bona fide dispute on this question. at .....

Govinda Naik G. Kalgahatagi Vs. West Patent Press Co. Ltd.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1980Kant95

..... apply to premises let for education, business, trade or storage. it is plain that the court exercising power under the bombay rents hotel and lodging house rates control act 1947, has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession of land used for agricultural purposes, again ascertaining whether the land demised is used for agricultural purposes, ..... pronouncements of the supreme court in subhadra's case and vasudev dhanjibhai modi's case under the bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates control act, 1947 (act 57 of 1947) are pressed into service by the learned counsel during the arguments it is necessary first to examine the relevant provisions of the bombay ..... shah, j.)'4. the expression 'premises' in section (8) of the bombay rents hotel and lodging house rates control act 57 of 1947 does not include premises used for agricultural purposes. by section 6 of that act, the provisions of part ii which relate to conditions in which orders in ejectment may be made against the tenants and .....

Rathanakar M. Shetty Vs. House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Nort ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1998KAR3694; 1998(3)KarLJ1

..... portion, ground floor, 2nd cross, k.p. west, bangalore. pursuant to the said report, two notices under section 8(1)(a) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (hereinafter the act) were issued showing one mr. jagannath to be the 6wner thereof with the endorsement 'address not known'. the office copy of the said notices bears the ..... , quite advisedly, came out with the notification dated 24-4-1995 making the provisions of sections 4, 5 and 10-a of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'act') inapplicable within the limits of bangalore city and are within a radius of three kilometres from the limits thereof.2. here is a case where, ..... the property of the appellant on the strength of an order passed in respect of some other building by the house rent and accommodation controller (hereinafter the 'controller') under section 5 of the act.property and its ownership history.-3. admittedly, the appellant, under a registered sale deed dated 17-6-1993, had purchased the outhouse .....

Anwar Vs. T.R. Revanna

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2002(4)KarLJ150

..... of the tenants under section 21(1)(a), (h), (i), (j) and (p) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961.3. the trial court, on the consideration of the oral and documentary evidence allowed the petition under section 21(1)(p) of the ..... the initiation of proceedings for acquisition is not a ground to defeat the claim of eviction under section 21(1)(p) of the act. that apart whenever after coming into force of the provisions of section 21(1)(p) when a tenant owns, acquires or builds any ..... , both the courts have concurrently found that the landlord has made out a case of eviction under section 21(1)(p) of the act holding that the tenant is owning an alternative premises.5. the counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that except the material in ex.p ..... filed on the other grounds. the first revisional court confirmed the order of eviction under section 21(1)(p) of the act and dismissed the revision of the tenant. being aggrieved, the present revision is filed.4. on going through the impugned .....