Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-12-1970
Reported in : 7(1971)DLT14
B.C. Misra, J.(1) The short question for determination in Civil Revision 682-D of 1965 and Civil Revision 685-D of 1965 is whether in view of section 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (Act 59) of 1958, section 15 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Ast 88) of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act') or section 20 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (Act 59) of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act ) will apply to the facts of the cases. The new Act came into force on 9th of February, 1959, and section 57 of the same reads as follows: (1)The Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1952), in so far as it is applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi, is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said Act pending, at the commencement of this Act, before any court or other authority shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provions of the said Act, as if the said Act had continued in force and this Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-04-1970
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi768
Deshpande, J.(1) We have to construe sub-sections (1) and (4) of section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) after taking into. account the legislative context of such construction. The premises occupied by the petitioners in this and the connected writ petitions as tenants were formerly evacuee property and, thereforee, rents payable by these temants are very low, namely Rs. 2.50, Rs. 5.00 and Rs. 3.50 per month in Writ Petitions 911, 912 and 913 of 1969 rspectively. The evacuee property was later acquired by the Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and sold to one Smt. Sarla Gupta by public auction. The sale certificate was issued to Smt. Saria Gupta. The petitioners admit Smt. Sarla Gupta to be their landlord. (2) The Arya Pritinidhi Sabha, Punjab, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and the Arya Samaj. Kishan Ganj, Delhi, a Society not so registered, bot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-23-1970
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi651
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) The short question, which has been referred to the Division Bench, is whether a tenant is liable to be ejected from any premises under clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) if he has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a residence before the commencement of the tenancy. The question had arisen in S.A.O. Nos. 125 of 1967 and 161-D of 1965. Brief reference has been made to the facts in the case of S.A.O. No. 125 of 1967, and the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the answer to the above question in S.A.O. No. 125 of 1967 would also govern the other case.(2) The premises in dispute, situated in Golf Links Colony, New Delhi, were let out to Shrimati Avinash Kaur appellant for her residence on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,400.00 on June 1, 1962. Before that, on January 18, 1956 the appellant acquired vacant possession of a residential hou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-10-1970
Reported in : AIR1970Delhi232
..... relationship of a landlord and a tenant.14. though the provisions of the rent laws do not, in terms, apply to the requisition, made under the requisitioning and acquisition of immovable property act, yet principles laid down for fixation of the standard rent in these laws may furnish a useful guide for determining the recurring payment, as rent. according to sub-section (4) of section 8 of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, the standard rend of a premises was not to exceed 7 1 ..... property act of 1952 had come into force repealing the delhi premises (requisition and eviction) act, 1947. in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 24 of the requisitioning and acquisition of immovable property act 1952, the compensation is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of that act. 9. section 8 of the requisitioning and acquisition of immovable property act, 1952 lays down the principles and method for determining compensation in connection with requisition. that section says that where the amount of compensation can be fixed by agreement, it ..... as an arbitrator for fixing fair amount of compensation, payable to the owners in connection with the requisition. the owners of the requistioned premises filed their claim for compensation before shri sunder lal.the detailsof the compensation, claimed, were given in paragraph 8 of the claim-petition, which are as under:-'(a) compensation for use and occupation at the rate of rs. 10,000 per month from 5-7-1948 the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-19-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Delhi164
1. Bhola Singh, the father of Ram Singh and Amar Singh appellants Nos. 1 and 2, was a tenant in house NO. 1313 Ward No. Viii, situated in Kucha Hiralal, Gali Kundewalan, Ajmere Gate, Delhi, on a rent of Rs. 67 per month, together with Rs. 6/7/- as house tax and Rs. 3/- as water tax, totalling Rs. 76/7/- per month. This house originally belonged to one Hira Lal, after whose death his son Khushawaqat Rai, respondent No. 1 claimed to be its owner. Bhola Singh appears to have started paying rent to Khnushwaqat Rai, to whom he paid all rents up to August 31, 1958. No rent was paid to him with effect from 1st September, 1958 to 30th June, 1959. Khushwaqat Rai respondent No. 1 had served on Bhola Singh, a notice of demand dated April 21, 1959 but there was no response. On July 22, 1959 respondent No. 1 filed a petition of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from September 6, 1958 to July 6, 1959. The tenant, Bhol...
Tag this Judgment!