Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: delhi and ajmer rent control act 1952 repealed section 24 fixing of fair rate Year: 1972 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.070 seconds)

Kanhya Lal and ors. Vs. Birdhi Chand Girdhari Lal and ors.

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also submitted that though under the delhi rent control act, 1958, by which the delhi and ajmer rent control act was repealed, nuisance is no longer a ground turn eviction but in view of the provisions of section 54 and 57 of the new act and because the premises are situated in area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that the delhi and ajmer rent control act in so far as it was applicable to the unionterritory of delhi was being repealed.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 .....

Dhan Raj Jayna Vs. S.P. Singh

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1973Delhi297

1. The main question for decision in this second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) is whether the respondent tenant complied with the order of the Controller passed under Section 15 of the Act to obtain the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act. But in answering this question, various other provisions of the Act. e.g. Section 2(k) , 4 to 9, 12 and 13, and Section 59 to 60 and 72 of the Contract Act have also to be considered.2. The premises of the appellant landlord were let to the respondent tenant from 1-7-1944., In the suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent filed by the landlord under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent control Act. 1952 the standard rent to the premises was fixed by Shri J. L. Tandon, Subordinate Judge at Rs. 717-75 including house-tax. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the High Court on 19-3-1964. during the pendency of the appeal. the Delhi Rent Co...

Dewan Daulat Ram Kapur Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1973Delhi363

S.N. Andley, J.(1) The writ petition and the Letters Patent appeals cams up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench felt that several Supreme Court decisions and two Division Bench decisions of this Court had to be considered and they referred these matters to a Full Bench. This judgment will cover all these matters. (2) The writ petition is concerned with a property situate in Jor Bagh in New Delhi within the jurisdiction of the New Delhi Municipal Committee which is governed by the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The appeals are in respect of properties which are situate within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which is governed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Properties situate within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or the New Delhi Municipal Committee are again governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and were even before 1958 governed by the previous Rent Restriction Acts including the Delhi an...

Ram Rakhamal Vs. Hari Ram and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1973Delhi555

S.N. Andley, J. (1) Since the correctnsss of the decision of S.K.. Kapur J. in Sinf. Shakuntla and others v. Pi. Bhagwan Dass and others reported in (1967 (69) Punjab Law Reporter 130 (Delhi Section) was assailed by the respondents in these revision petitions, they were ordered to be placed before a Division Bench. The point of law is common to these revision petitions and it is whether permission to execute a decree for eviction passed before the coming into force of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act, 1964, was necessary, (2) The petitioner in all these petitions is the landlord of House No. 2767/1937 situate in Gali Ahiran, Malka Ganj, Delhi. The respondent in each of these petitions is occupying a portion of this house as a tenant under the petitioner. While Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, was in force, the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. 1956, was passed. Under section 19 of this Act, a decree for the eviction of a tenant from any building...

SatnaraIn Sao Vs. the State of Bihar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1972SC1561; 1974(0)BLJR32; 1972CriLJ1048; (1972)3SCC881; [1973]1SCR207; 1972(4)LC947(SC)

A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Patna High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code for which a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment was imposed.2. According to the case of the prosecution a Sen-Raleigh cycle was stolen from the possession of Sheo Charan Lal. He reported the matter to the Police on March 25, 1965. It appears that on May 11, 1965 the Station House Officer, Incharge Giridih Police Station A.D.N. Sinha learnt while he was moving about in the town on the Moharram day that a thief was running away with a cycle. The alleged thief was apprehended and the cycle in his possession was taken into custody. The name of that person was Mohd. Siddique. He made a statement to the police officer which led him to search the premises of the appellant. As a result of the search seven cycles including the Sen-Raleigh cycle belonging to Sheo Charan Lal which was stolen on March 24, 1965 a...

Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. Prem Parkash Kaur and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1972P& H458

1. This is first appeal by Raj Kumar and other defendants against Sardarni Prem Parkash Kaur plaintiff. It is directed against the judgment of Shri Om Parkash Saini, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana dated August 31, 1962 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for possession of a building bearing unit number B.II 1745 situated in the town of Ludhiana.2. The property in dispute belonged to Sardar Gajjan Singh. He had a son Jaswant Singh. The plaintiff was married to Jaswant Singh. On August 8, 1928, Sardar Gajjan Singh executed a will in favour of Jaswant Singh bequeathing all his property including the property in dispute. In that will, he provided that Smt. Ajmer Kaur, mother of Jaswant Singh shall have the right of residence in the property during her lifetime. Sardar Gajjan Singh died on June 10, 1929. Jaswant Singh succeeded to the property by virtue of inheritance as well as on the strength of will. Jaswant Singh died on March 12, 1936. The plaintiff succeeded to his entire property incl...

Furman Vs. Georgia

Court : US Supreme Court

Furman v. Georgia - 408 U.S. 238 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) Furman v. Georgia No. 69-5003 Argued January 17, 1972 Decided June 29, 1972 * 408 U.S. 238 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA Syllabus Imposition and carrying out of death penalty in these cases held to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. No. 69-5003, 225 Ga. 253, 167 S.D.2d 628; No. 69-5030, 225 Ga. 790, 171 S.D.2d 501; No. 69-5031, 447 S.W.2d 932, reversed and remanded. Page 408 U. S. 239 PER CURIAM. Petitioner in No. 69-5003 was convicted of murder in Georgia, and was sentenced to death pursuant to Ga.Code Ann. 26-1005 (Supp. 1971) (effective prior to July 1, 1969). 225 Ga. 253, 167 S.E.2d 628 (1969). Petitioner in No. 69-5030 was convicted of rape in Georgia, and was sentenced to death pursuant to Ga.Code Ann. 26-1302 (Supp. 1971) (effective prior to July 1, 1969). 225 Ga. 790, 171 S.D.2d 501 (1969). Petiti...