Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-05-1974
Reported in : AIR1974P& H339
Man Mohan Singh Gujral, J.1. Lalit Behari Petitioner applied for the eviction of the respondent, Sant Lal, from a shop situated in Rori Bazar, Sirsa, mainly on the ground that the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that he had been directed by the Municipal Committee to demolish the same. The tenant resisted the application and pleaded that the building was fit for habitation and that the landlord had managed to get a notice issued by the Municipal Committee in collusion with the President who was related to him with the only object of getting the tenant evicted. In view of this, the parties went to trial mainly on the following issue:-'Whether building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation?'Relying on the rule laid down in Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath, 1963-65 Pun LR 528, Chuhar Mal v. Balak Ram, 1964-66 Pun LR 503 and Raj Kumari v. Shadi Lal, 1969-71 Pun LR 245, the learned Rent controller held that this ground was not available to the landlord as he had not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-25-1974
Reported in : 1974WLN199
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff-landlords from the appellate judgment and decree by the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer who upheld the decree against the original tenant Ramjidas, and one sub-tenant Heeralal, but dismissed the suit against the heirs of Suryanand-another subtenant in respect of the ground-floor of the suit premises.2. It is undisputed that the premises in question were originally let out to Ramjidas who sublet the ground-floor (except one Baithak) on rent of Rs. 16/- to Suryanand In the suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiffs, not only the tenant Ramjidas but the alleged sub-tenants Heeralal and Suryanand were also impleaded on the ground that a part of the premises had been sublet to them without the consent of the land-lord. Two additional grounds ware relied upon for ejectment, viz. defaults in payment of rent and nuisance. All the defendants resisted the suit and after trial the learned Munsiff, Ajmer City (East) held that all the three grounds ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-06-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC514; 1974CriLJ469; (1974)4SCC544
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. An old case of house-breaking, allegedly by five persons, resulted in the acquittal of the 3rd accused by the magistrate and on appeal the 5th accused's guilt also was held not proved. The 2nd accused has appealed against his concurrent conviction while accused Nos, 1 and 4 have resigned themselves to their sentences.2. 40 bundles of copper wire kept in the godown of M/s. Lee W Muirhead (India) Pvt. Ltd. at Sewri in Bombay were admittedly burgled on Sunday, September 25, 1966, in the morning and removed in a lorry of driver Hassan. A4 had hired the lorry, taken a few hammals (head load carriers), loaded the vehicle with the copper wire, the godown watchman being absent, and on its way the lorry was stopped at the weigh bridge where the brokers for sale of the stolen property were also present. The story of the break-in is substantially established and the involvement of A1 and A4is proved. Two of those whose roles were important, according to the prosecution ver...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-09-1974
Reported in : 1974WLN367
1. This appeal and 107 other appeals detailed in Annexure A' and the 10 writ petitions detailed in Annexure! 'B' to this judgment, raise common questions of law relating to the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter railed 'the Act') and can be conveniently disposed of together. The respondents in these appeals were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge who had licences from the Excise Department for the retail sale of country liquor and we shall call them for the sake of convenience 'liquor contractor'. They challenged by their petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution that the State of Rajasthan was unjustified in law in demanding from them moneys which amounted to the excise duty in respect of the liquor which they had not drawn. The State of Rajasthan filed no written answer but it was contended on their behalf that the liquor contractors had to pay certain guarantee amount of money and if they failed to perform their obligations in terms of their licences the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-14-1974
Reported in : AIR1974P& H162
Bal Raj Tuli, J.1. A number of writ petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the various provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1973(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Act received the assent of the President of India on March 24, 1973, and was published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette under notification No. 12-Leg/73 dated April 2, 1973, from which date it came into force. It is not necessary to state the facts of any case because all these cases (C. W. Nos. 3145, 3150, 3210, 3254, 3287, 3288, 3293, 3456 to 3463, 3469, 3470, 3472, 3503, 3547 to 3550, 3564 to 3568, 3629 and 4004 of 1973) will be decided on merits by a learned Single Judge in the light of the decisions rendered in this judgment.2. The sections of the Act which have been challenged as ultra vires are Section 4, Section 5 and the definitions of 'family' and 'person' in Section 3(4) and (10). These sections read as under:--'4(1). Subject to t he provisions of Section 5, no person shall own...
Tag this Judgment!