Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-01-1973
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
Decided on : Sep-07-1973
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi45; 1974RLR39
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) In this second appeal the only question which arises for decision is as to whether under the provisions of section 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') MurariLal appellant can be deemed to have become a tenant holding directly under the landlords in respect of the premises in his occupation on the same term and conditions on which Ranjit Singh tenant would have held from the landlords, if the tenancy had continued. (2) The premises to which this case relates is a godown which is part of a building having Municipal No. 11/953, situate in Kucha Qabil Attar, Chandni Chowk, Ward No. 11, Delhi. It is not disputed that the godown belonged to Haji Abdul Jabbar and was let out by him on June 19. 1954 to Ranjit Singh at a rent of Rs. 85.00 per month. In July 1956 Ranjit Singh sub-let the godown to Murari Lal without the consent of the landlord. (3) In April 1963 Haji Abdul Jabbar filed an application, under clause (a) of the proviso t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-23-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Delhi108; 9(1973)DLT352; 1973RLR331
1. The point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether a landlord can evict a tenant on the ground referred to in clause (d) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as 'the 1958 Act.'In a case where the premises shall be deemed to have been lawfully sub-let within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the 1958 Act and where the sub-tenant has been and is in occupation of the tenancy premises Clause (d) store said gives a right to the landlord to evict a tenant on the ground that the premises were let for use as residence and neither the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filling of the application for the recovery of possession thereof. Concededly, the other ground of eviction enumerated under the aforesaid proviso will be available to the landlord against the tenant even in a case where the sub-tenant shall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-29-1973
Reported in : 1973RLR627
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This is an appeal by the tenant against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 13.10.72 by which he set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 7-10-1969 and directed eviction of the appellant. (2) The respondent landlady on April 17, 1965 filed an application under clause (g) of Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that the premises in dispute were required bonafide by the landlady for the purpose of re-building and such re-building could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. It was also alleged that the proposed reconstruction would not radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let and that the premises in dispute were in a dilapidated condition and it was in the public interest that the premises be reconstructed. It was further alleged that the reconstruction was necessary to meet the requirement of the petitioner and her fam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-05-1973
Reported in : AIR1973Delhi265; 9(1973)DLT267
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) On facts stated below, two questions arise for decision, namely :- (1)If a tenant (whose contractual tenancy has already been terminated) dies during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding for his eviction filed by the landlord, is the landlord entitled to a decree or order for the possession of the premises against the legal representatives of the deceased tenant in the same proceeding? and (2) In what circumstances can such a decree or order be challenged as being without jurisdiction by the said legal representatives in the executing court?(2) The landlord respondent Vijay Kumar field a suit against his tenant Kidar Nath Malhotra for arrears of rent and eviction on February 18, 1955 under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereafter called the 1952 Act). But the tenant died even before he was served wit htbe summons of the suit. The landlord alleged that he had already terminated the contractual tenancy of Kidar Nath who had, thereforee, become only a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-11-1973
Reported in : AIR1974SC818; (1974)1SCC424; [1974]2SCR629
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 50 of 1968 and 1201 of 1970. From the judgment and Order dated the 20th January 1966, and' 26th November 1968 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 1124 of 1963 and 153 of 1966. K.S. Ramamurthy and S. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant (in both the appeals). S.V. Gupte and A.S. Nambiar, for respondent Nos. 1-3 (in both-., the appeals). S. Govindaswaminathan, A.V..Rangam, N.S. Sivam and A. Subshashini, for respondent No. 5 (in both the appeals). B.R. Agrawala, for intervener (in C.A. 50/68). The Judgment of A.N. Ray, C.J., H.R. Khanna and A. Alagiri-- swami, JJ. was delivered by Alagiriswami, J. The dissenting Opinion of' K.K. Mathew and P.N. Bhagwati JJ. was delivered by Bhagwati, J. ALAGIRISWAMI, J. The appellants are the tenants of a property bearing door Nos. 16 and 17 on the Poonamallee High Road in the city of Madras. They became tenants of this building in May 1929, when the property was with one of the predecessors in title...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-09-1973
Reported in : AIR1973SC2352; [1973]88ITR439(SC); (1973)4SCC175
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal by certificate arises from the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family. In this case we are concerned with the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1950-51.2. The question for decision in this case is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the proceedings which were commenced by a notice under Section 34(1)(b) could have been converted into proceedings under Section 34(1)(a) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In Order to decide this question it is necessary to refer to the material facts. For the assessment year in question the assessee was assessed without any objection. Thereafter the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to him under Section 34 of the Act without mentioning therein whether he was taking action under Section 34(1)(a) or 34(1)(b). The assessee filed its objection to the noti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-12-1973
Reported in : AIR1975Kant31; ILR1974KAR95; 1974(1)KarLJ265
1. This appeal is fifed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order passed in M. C. No. 8 of 1972 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bhar-war, directing the appellant to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 100 p. m. by way ofmaintenance pendente lite, and Rs. 100 towards expenses of the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife The respondent filed M. C. No, 8 of 1972 against the appellant for a decree for judicial separation. During the pendency of the said case she applied to the Court below for making an order in regard to the maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. She stated in the course of the said application that the income of the appellant was in the order of Rs. 300 p. m. and she was entitled to maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 200 per month and Rs. 150 towards the expenses of the proceedings. The respondent pleaded that his income was in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-24-1973
Reported in : AIR1973SC1461; (1973)4SCC225; [1973]SuppSCR1
1. I propose to divide my judgment into eight parts. Part I will deal with Introduction; Part II with interpretation of Golakhnath case; Part III with the interpretation of the original Article 368, as it existed prior to its amendment; Part IV with the validity of the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act; Part V with the validity of Section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VI with the validity of Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VII with Constitution (Twenty- ninth Amendment) Act; and Part VIII with conclusions.PART I-Introduction2. All the six writ petitions involve common questions as to the validity of the Twenty- fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth Amendments of the Constitution. I may give a few facts in Writ petition No. 135 of 1970 to show how the question arises in this petition. Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 was filed by the petitioner on March 21, 1970 under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of his ...
Tag this Judgment!