Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-1982
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 the 1947 act was repealed by the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 (act no.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
Decided on : May-28-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Delhi431; 22(1982)DLT29b; 1982(3)DRJ342; 1982RLR576
Prakash Narain, C.J.(1) These three appels have been placed before us on a refernce by a Division Bench of this Court. Some of the points in the three appeals are different but it is not necessary to deal with each one of them as the main point is common that alone turns the fate of these appeals. (2) The common point of law which arises for determination in these cases is with regard to the interpretation of sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act. This provision reads as under :- '(4)In granting or refusing to grant the permission under sub-section (3), the Competent Authority shall take into account the following factors, namely:- (a) Whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted ; (b) whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum areas ; (c) such other factors, if any, as may be prescribad.'The contentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-20-1982
Reported in : ILR1983Delhi691
..... act, 1952 because it permits the fixation of cinema rates would amount to repealing or amending any provision of the central act. extending punjab act, 1952 only supplies the gaps in central act (though in passing we may note that has held contrary to our court that punjab act (even without sections 7a and 7b) empowered the licensing authority to fix rates ..... control of rate of cinema tickets is not permissible under cinematographic act, 1952 an existing law in union territory of delhi any exercise of power extending a law like punjab act, 1952 permitting the fixation of cinema rates is in conflict and amounts to amending existing law i.e. the central act, 1952, and this is incompetent. this argument naturally assumes that there is irreconcilable conflict between she provisions of the central act and punjab act ..... expression in the maxim, sic utere tuo ut alienum no laedas. (see munn v. people of illinois; 24 law ed 77 when property is 'affected with a public interest, it ceased to be jurisdiction privatea ..... section 6(2) to the govt. to fix a lower rate of the maximum rent payable by the tenants of lands situate in any particular area or may fix such rate at any other suitable basis as it may think fit. section 6(1) provided for the maximum rent payable by a tenant for the lease of any land. the notification issued under section 6(2) had fixed the rates which were very much lower than the rate which had been fixed by the earlier notification. that is why a challenge was made to section .....
Tag this Judgment!