Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-24-1976
Reported in : AIR1976SC302; (1976)4SCC535; [1977]1SCR731
M.H. Beg, J.1.This appeal by special leave is directed against the unanimous decision of a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court. The case before us arose from a Writ Petition filed by the respondent, M.N. Soi, praying that certain assessment orders, together with the order under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act III of 1911, passed on 11th February, 1966, by an Additional District Magistrate of Delhi relating to the house of the petitioner at 15, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, modifying assessments on appeal, be quashed. The respondent landlord submitted that assessment for purposes of rating, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(1 )(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act III of 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and, in particular, the interpretation of the words 'may reasonably be expected to be let from year to year', impose upon the assessing authorities the obligation not to assess at a higher rental value than the 'standard rent'. It is not disputed that standard rent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-18-1976
Reported in : AIR1977P& H187
..... delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, provided the procedure for obtaining the relief of ejectment, and that being so, the provisions of section 106 of the transfer of property act. had no relevance in considering an application for ejectment made under that act. they further observed that there was nothing in the act corresponding to the provisions of section 13 (1) in the bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates (control) act ..... rent or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter house or of rents for shops has, been farmed out or leased by a municipal, town or notified area committee.section 4 deals with determination of fair rent and section 13. with eviction of tenants. section 4(1) says that the controller shall on application by the tenant or landlord of a building or rented land fix the fair rent for such building or rented land after holding such inquiry as the controller thinks fit. the relevant clauses of section ..... in occupation of the property in dispute prior to february 24, 1956, as a tenant from month to month, he ..... rent restriction act can be said to have impliedly repealed the requirements of section 106 of the transfer of property act as that provision can stand side by side with section 13 of punjab act no. 3 of 1949. the full bench further held that an application for ejectment of a monthly tenant under section 13 of the act cannot succeed without the contractual tenancy being first determined by a notice under section 106 of the transfer of property act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-14-1976
Reported in : ILR1976Delhi530
H.L. Anand, J.(1) By this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner challenges the order of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, upholding in appeal an order of the execution court overruling the objection of the petitioner with regard to the validity of the decree for the eviction of the tenant in respect of the premises pursuant to which the petitioner is sought to be evicted.(2) The proceedings have had a rather chequered course. Ram Saran Dass, since deceased, obtained a decree for the ejectment of his tenant, one Kabul Singh, in respect of the premises in dispute as early as the year 1955. Ejectment had been sought on the ground of non-payment of rent, nuisance and unauthorised sub-letting. Considerable evidence was led on behalf of the parties. Evidence was closed on November 29, 1954. On January 6, 1955, the court inspected the premises in dispute apparently with a view to verify the correctness of the rival contentions with regard to the condu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-18-1976
Reported in : AIR1977P& H262
Surinder Singh, J.1. The point referred to 'the wisdom of five' is not ariddle which only Oedipus could have solved. Though the Revision Petition has been referred to us for decision in toto, In essence the question requiring consideration is whether the issuance of a notice under Section 106, T. P. Act, is a must before a landlord can seek eviction of the tenant under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (referred hereinafter as the Rent Act).2. Facts must precede percipience and judgment would follow without constraint. Vinod Kumar minor, acting through his father as his next friend, (to be referred for brevity as the landlord) launched a petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act against Harbans Singh Azad respondent (referred henceforth as the tenant) for his eviction from a shop situated at Sirsa, District Hissar, on two grounds, namely, (i) the tenant had failed to pay the rent for the premises with effect from December 2, 1965, i. e., for a period of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-14-1976
Reported in : (1977)0GLR186
Desai, J.1. The decisions of two Division Benches are conflicting on the issue as to whether a person who purchases the leased property along with arrears of rent prior to his purchase can evict a tenant in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that is why the said point is referred to us. The facts in all the civil revision applications are similar and we shall state briefly the facts in Civil Revision Application No. 533 of 1969, which are that the suit property is a part of Nondh No. 817 situated in the city of Surat. The leased property isused as a stable. The present owner purchased the property on August 4, 1966 from its previous owner with the right to recover the rent already due at the date of transfer from the defendanttenant. The rent was due from July 1, 1965, The plaintiff-landlord, therefore, gave a notice to the defendant-tenant demanding the rent due from July 1,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-13-1976
Reported in : (1977)2MLJ47
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, namely, Writ Petitions Nos. 1743 and 1773 of 1972, the facts leading to which may be stated at some length. On the basis of the information that one K.P. Hamsa had received about a lakh of rupees on account of what is generally known as 'compensatory payment' and was about to take the money to Mattool in Kerala State for disbursement, officers of the Madras Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Enforcement Directorate) kept a watch for the suspect at the Madras Central Railway Station on the 7th of October, 1969. K.P. Hamsa, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1773 of 1972, was found boarding the West Coast Express train when he was intercepted and a search of his person and baggage yielded a sum of Rs. 84,000 in the form of Indian currency notes. On interrogation, he stated th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-13-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Bom99
Masodkar, J. 1. These 2661 cases have clogged the Court's corridors for considerable time, challenging the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act No. 21 of 1975) Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Amendment Act, 1975 (Act No. 47 of 1975) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Act No. 2 of 1976).2. The petitioners raised almost Common questions and the petitions can be decided by an order indicating separate points urged in support of different petitioners' claims. It is assumed and not disputed that the petitioner in each petition is aggrieved by the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling On Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended and in issue.3. At the outset it must be stated that in Special Ci...
Tag this Judgment!