Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-13-1967
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
Decided on : Nov-21-1967
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT704
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This second appeal has been preferred under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 195S (hereinafter called the Act) from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24th July, 1967 dismissing the appellant's appeal and affirming the order of the First Additional Rent Controller dated 23rd September, 1966 holding that the landlord bonafide required the premises in question for occupation as residence for himself and for his family members dependent upon him and that he was nto in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation and on his finding, making an order of eviction against the tenant with a direction to vacate the premises Within six months from the date of the order. buth the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal left the parties to bear their own costs. (2) On second appeal, which would nto lie under the statute unless it involved some substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant has, at the very outset, pressed his applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-28-1967
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi299
I.D. Dua, C.J.1. At the time of admission of this revision (C. R. No. 67 of 1967), Shri Sushil Malhtora and Shri R. N. Malhtora appearing in support of the petitioner Sant Ram cited before Andley, J. Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath, 1963 P. L. R. 528, a decision by Falshaw, C. J. And Chuhar Mal v. Balak Ram, 1964 Cur Lj 119 = (1964) 66 PLR 503 (Dulat and Pandit JJ.) in support of their plea for admission of this revision. Shanker. J. felt doubtful of the correctness of the view taken in these two decisions, with the result that while admitting the revision, he directed that the same should be heard after ntoice by a larger Bench. It is in these circumstances that this revision has been placed before us for final disposal.2. The main question arising for settlement by us relates to the interpretation of section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act No. Iii of 1949 (hereafter described as the Punjab Act). The provision of law requiring interpretation may now be reproduced.'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-28-1967
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT284
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) At the time of admission of this revision (C.R. No. 67 of 1967), Shri Sushil Malhtora and Shri R.N. Malhtora appearing in support of the petitioner Sant Ram cited before Andly. J. Panna Lal v. Shri Jagan Nath a decision Falshaw C.J. and Chuhar Mal v. Shri Balak Ran, (Dulat and Pandit JJ.) insupport of their plea for admission of this revision. Shankar.J.felt doubtful of the correctness of the view taken in these two decision, with the result that while admitting the revision he directed that the same should be heard after ntoice by a larger Bench. It is in these circumstances that this revision has been placed before us for final disposal. (2) The main question arising for settlement by us relates to the interpretation of section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Kent Restriction Act No. 1II of 1949 (hereafter described as the PunJab Act). The provision of law requiring interpretation may now be reproduced :- '13.* * * * (3) (a) A landlord may apply to the Contro...
Tag this Judgment!