Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi176; 23(1983)DLT148; 1983(4)DRJ161; 1983RLR73
..... at all to vacant land. the 1947 act was repealed by the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 (act no. xxxviii of 1952) hereinafter referred to as 1952 act' and this act again contained provisions from sections 6 to 9 for fixation of standard rent and provisions of sections 6 to 8 read with second schedule to 1952 act made the provision of determination of standard rent and made a distinction between different types of premises and provided different criteria for fixation thereof. there was clear cut different provision for fixing standard rent for premises let for residential purpose and those let for non-residential purpose. (14) section 13 of the 1952 act provided for control of eviction of a tenant and there again ..... . during the pendency of the appeal clause (1) of section 2 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (act no. 59 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal act') was amended by delhi rent control (amendment) ordinance 1975 (no. 24 of 1975) hereinafter referred to as 'the ordinance') whereby section 3 thereof, clause 2(1) was deemed to have been substituted by the newly substituted clause. before the expiry of the aforesaid ordinance, the parliament passed delhi rent control (amendment) act, 1976 (no. 18 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the 'amending act.') section 2 of the amending act provided that, 'in section 2 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (principal act) for clause (1) the following clause shall .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi376
S.N. Andley, J.(1) Shop No. 3865/4, Khirki Taffazul Hussain, Urdu Bazar, Delhi was constructed by the appellant in June 1957. On October 1, 1957, it was let to the respondent at a rent of Rs. 30.00 per month. Upon the application of the respondent under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the '1952 Act'), the Rent Court by its order dated November 2!, I960 fixed the standard rent of the shop at Rs. 11.46 Paise per month with effect from March 22, 1958. By the time the order fixing the standard rent was passed, the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the '1958 Act') had come into force. By notice dated December 29, 1960 the appellant called upon the respondent to pay the arrears of rent for the months of November and December 1960 failing which an application for eviction of the respondent was threatened to be filed The arrears of rent were demanded at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month. The respondent replied to the notice on January ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 9(1973)DLT491; 1973RLR509
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) This revision has been referred for decision by a larger bench because of divergence of views expressed in the cases- Vas Dev v. Sohan Singh and others (1968) D.L.T. 492 and Inder Lal Sapra v. Brij Mohan (S.A.O. 300 of 1971) decided on May 24, 1972 on the question whether a judgment-debtor tenant.. during execution of the decree for eviction against him, on the ground of personal bona fide need of the landlord, can agitate the question that the need of the landlord had ceased to exist and, thereforee, the decree was inexecutable. (2) In a suit for eviction filed by the respondent (hereafter called 'the landlord') under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act. 1952 (hereafter called 'the 1952 Act') for eviction of the appellant (hereafter called 'the tenant') on the ground that the premises were required by him bona fide, the trial court on December 21, 1955 granted a decree for eviction in his favor on the basis of a compromise. According to the compromise, the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi210
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) Messrs Karan Chand Prem Chand Private Limited known as Sarabhai Chemicals are occupying as tenants a portion of the ground floor, including a loft. of building No. 12. Block No. 3. Asaf Ali Road. New Delhi. At first rent was being paid at the rate of Rs. 1,250.00 per month besides house-tax and actual charges for water and electricity. With effect from February 1. 1958, the rent was increased to Rs. 1,750.00 per month. House-tax and actual charges for water and electricity were in addition to that. (2) On January 4. 1961. Sarabhai Chemicals applied, under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for fixation of standard rent. At that time the premises belonged to Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh and his wife. Shrimati Lajwanti. and their son Gurbachan Singh. During the pendency of the proceedings the property was purchased by Messrs Urvinder Estates Private Limited. Afterwards Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh also died. (3) The new la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002IIAD(Delhi)261; 95(2002)DLT508; 2002(61)DRJ457; 2002RLR149
..... rent would be the standard rent. but in case the basic rent of the premises per annum exceeds rs. 600/-, the basic rent together with ten per cent of such basic rent would be the standard rent. sub-section (1)(a)(2) of section 6 deals with the standard rent of residential premises which have been let out at any time on or after june 2, 1944 in respect of which rent has been fixed under the repealed delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act, 1947 (19 of 1947),or the repealed delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 (38 of 1952 ..... for the fixing and revision of fair rate and recovery of possession in respect of hotels and lodging houses; (j) provide for a simpler and speedier system of disposal of rent cases through rent authorities and rent tribunal and by barring thejurisdiction of all courts except the supreme court; and (k) enhance the penalties for infringement of the provisions of the legislation by landlords and tenants.' 13. thus, it appears that the parliament was conscious of the shortcomings in the delhi rent control act, 1958 ..... unreasonable and unfair restriction needs to be eliminated from the provisions dealing with standard rent. 24. ms. geeta mittal, learned counsel for the union of india submitted that the supreme court in d.c. bhatia and ors. v. union of india and ors., : (1995)1scc104 ,has upheld the provisions of the delhi rent control act, 1958, and, thereforee, the challenge to sections 4, 6 and 9 thereof must be rejected. she also submitted that theprovisions .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi820
..... fix standard rent only if the agreed rent was unreasonable. the learned counsel for the defendants did not press for fixation of standard rent. no advantage can, thereforee, be gained by the plaintiffs from the fact that though an issue regarding, the standard rent was raised in view of the plea raised by the defendants but the issue was left undecided. (54) though many grounds for eviction of the defendants were taken (he court below only allowed eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent under the provisions of clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 13 of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 ..... section 13 of the delhi and ajmer rent control act. it was also submitted that though under the delhi rent control act, 1958, by which the delhi and ajmer rent control act was repealed, nuisance is no longer a ground turn eviction but in view of the provisions of section 54 and 57 of the new act and because the premises are situated in area subjected to slum areas (improvement and clearance) act, 1956 the new act did not apply. reliance was placed, 1956 the new act did not apply 1969 s.c 1165 (57) the section 57(1) of delhi rent control act, 1958 provided that the delhi and ajmer rent control act in so far as it was applicable to the unionterritory of delhi was being repealed. while repealing it, by sub-section (2) of the same section ..... fair and in the circumstances of the case in no way unreasonable. there is no justification for enhancing the rate ..... . (24) the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1975Delhi236
..... delhi rent control order, 1939, was repealed in 1947 by section 15 of the delhi and ajmer merwar rent control act, 1947, but everything duly done under the repealed rent control order was saved. the said act of 1947 was repealed by section 46 of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, which in its turn was repealed by section 57 of the delhi control act, 1958. it has further to be noted that the delhi rent control act of 1958 makes reference to the new delhi rent control order of 1939 only for the purpose of computation and determination of standard rent which we shall refer to again in detail at a later stage. (22) thus, none of the reasons mentioned by the learned counsel is tenable, and the contention of the learned counsel that the order passed by the controller fixing the fair rent under the new delhi rent control ..... (1)that the three orders of the committee assessing the annual value at rs. 24.000.00 for purposes of house-tax for the years 1963-64, 1964-65, and 1965-66, and the common order of the additional district magistrate assessing the annual value at rs. 18,000.00 , be quashed, and (2) that the respondents, i.e., the committee and the additional district magistrate, delhi, be directed to assess the annual value of the said house at the rate of the standard rent, viz. rs. 2.818.00 minus 10 per cent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1982Delhi87; 20(1981)DLT364; 1981(2)DRJ262; ILR1982Delhi253
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Smt Ahmedi Begum is the owner of the property known as 'Dharampur Lodge' situated near Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar in terms of the registered lease deed executed on 12th April, 1948 was inducted as a tenant in the said property for five years on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000.00 . On 3rd April, 1953 another lease deed was executed between the aforesaid parties for a further period of five years. The tenant was in arrears of rent and he failed to pay the same in spite of a notice of demand dated 3rd June, 1957. His tenancy was also terminated by the said notice. (2) On 28th August, 1957 Smt. Ahmedi Begum filed a suit for eviction and recovery against the said tenant. On 31st August, 1959 the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi passed a decree for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 32.554/4.00 . The decree-holder took out execution in the court of the Subordinate Judge which was transferred to this court under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT61
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This revision is directed against the older of the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge dated 13th March 1963 allowing the appeal and revers sing the order of a learned Subordinate Judg 1st Class dated 31st August 1961 whereby the plaintiff's suit. for recovery of Rs. l,080.00 and for ejectment against the defendant was decreed.(2) The suit in the trial Court had been instituted by Smt. Mohan Devi, wife of Shri Gopi Chand, forma pauperis on the allegations that M/s. Arora Provision Stores of Delhi was a tenant under her with regard to a khokha situated at Phatak Mishri Khan, Daryaganj. Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs.30.00 and that no rent had been paid from 1st February, 1951 to 31st January, 1954. On the pleadings, the following three principal issues were settled:-- 1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether any valid ntoice of demand was served upon the defeneant 3 Whether the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1993Delhi278
ORDER1. Milk is an essential commodity within the meaning of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The Central Government has the power to regulate production, supply, distribution etc. of milk and milk products as provided in S. 3 of the Act. The Central Government as provided in S. 9can also delegate its power to make orders under S. 3 of the Act and direct the powers to be exercised by such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or to such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government as may be specified in the direction. Section 2(d) provides that 'State Government' in relation to a Union Territory means the Administrator thereof. In the case of Union Territory of Delhi the Central Government by notification dated 9th June, 1978 delegated its powers under S. 3 of the Act to the State Government. By virtue of that delegation the Administrator of Delhi over a period of time has been issuing various orders for main...
Tag this Judgment!