Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-03-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Delhi107; 13(1977)DLT204; 1978RLR145
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (No. 9 of 1887) against the judgment and decree of Shri B. B. Gupta, Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, dated 4th Oct., 1972, in Suit No. 3343 of 1972.2. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein, Shri Mohd. Usman, for recovery of Rs. 561.75p. alleging that the petitioner herein, Shri Ganga Ram, was a statutory tenant under him on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-, and that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi assessed the rate able value of the house No. 369 at Rs. 1,720/- and imposed other charges like water tax, scavenging tax, fire tax, etc. amounting to Rs. 111.80p. It was also alleged in the plaint that the petitioner (tenant) had sublet the premises in his tenancy to three persons who were paying rent to him amounting to Rs. 78.25p. per month, that the said amount was taken into consideration by the Corporation in determining the rateable value of the premises, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-22-1977
Reported in : (1977)18GLR848
J.B. Mehta, Ag. C.J.1. The plaintiffs-landlords have come in this Revision-Application as both the Courts have refused to pass the decree of eviction from the suit block after the defendant-tenant had shifted to his newly constructed bungalow on October 20, 1969.2. The short facts which have given rise to this litigation are as under. The defendant, Dr. Kantilal Shah has been a tenant in the suit house of the plaintiffs. There is a dispute as to whether the first block was given in 1946 as stated by the defendant or in 1948 as stated by the plaintiffs or whether this suit block which has been almost for all the time used as residential block was first let or after some short time as contended by the defendant. The defendant, however, had also got from time to time three other blocks in this very building. Thereafter, when in 1958 the defendant shifted to the hospital premises near Dandia Hanuman, where he had got four blocks out of which one he occupied for his residence and three for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-17-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Cal199,(1977)1CompLJ175(Cal),82CWN252
M.N. Roy, J.1. This appeal from appellate decree is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 30, 1970, made in Title Appeal No. 337 of 1970 by Shri S. K. Dutta. Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore, affirming thereby the judgment and decree dated January 30, 1970, made in Title Suit No. 234 of 1968, by Shri D. K, Panda, Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore.2. The plaintiff-respondent, being the owner of the premises in suit brought the Title Suit in question against the defendant appellant for recovery of khas possession by eviction and for mesne profits and also for compensation for damages Caused to the same. It was alleged that the defendant appellant was a tenant in respect of two bed rooms, one privy and one verandah at a monthly rent of Rupees 35/-, payable according to English calendar month. It was contended that the tenant defendant broke open a portion of the wall in between the bed rooms of his tenancy, made a hole in the wall of the privy and broke other portion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-17-1977
Reported in : AIR1977SC1353; (1977)2SCC640; [1977]3SCR327; 1977(9)LC327(SC)
Jaswant Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and order dated April 28, 1975, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 1819 of 1975 filed by the appellants and respondents 3 to 37 herein, who are industrial workers employed in factories situate in the industrial area in Chandigarh.2. The facts leading to this appeal are: In 1956, the Legislature of the then State of Punjab enacted what is called the Punjab Industrial Housing Act, 1956 (Punjab Act 16 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to provide for allotment, recovery of rent, eviction and other ancillary matters in respect of houses constructed under the subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme for industrial workers in the State of Punjab. In exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 24 of the Act, the State Government made rules called the Punjab Industrial Housing Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-14-1977
Reported in : AIR1978SC22; 1978MPLJ1(SC); (1978)1SCC58; [1978]1SCR723; 1977(9)LC712(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court of August 19, 1970. The facts and circumstances in this appeal disclose the highly tortuous-nature of litigation between the landlord and the tenants. To high-light this aspect we may briefly state the facts.2. A suit was filed by the appellant on February 17, 1959, for eviction of the respondents (tenants) from a three-storeyed premises. The tenants resisted the claim and trial proceeded in which, after the close of the plaintiff's case, the tenants examined two witnesses and the suit was adjourned for their further evidence to July 12, 1960. On that day a joint compromise petition was filed settling the matter. Statement of counsel on both sides was recorded by the court on the same day and an order was passed on the following day, namely, July. 13, 1960 and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. Without referring to the details of the terms of compromise at th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-02-1977
Reported in : AIR1977SC1986; 1994(3)Crimes608(SC); JT1994(6)SC475; 1994(4)SCALE401; (1977)3SCC483; [1978]1SCR241; 1977(9)LC519(SC)
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. These appeals are by certificate granted to Hem Chand, the tenant, under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against the judgment of a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court holding that the time prescribed under Section 15(1) cannot be extended by the Rent Controller. Municipal Corporation of Delhi is the intervener in both the appeals.2. The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. Is the landlord. The appellant tenant occupied the premises at an agreed rent of Rs. 165/- p.m. The tenant defaulted in payment of rent and the landlord issued a notice of demand on 10th August, 1963 calling upon the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,970/- being the arrears of rent and also complaining that he had unauthorisedly sublet the premises. The tenant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- only towards arrears within the notice period. As the balance amount was not paid, on February1 24, 1964, the landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act on gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-20-1977
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi139; 1977RLR549
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This appeal has been placed before the Division Bench in view of order of reference to a larger bench dated 6th October, 1972, passed by T. P. S. Chawla, J., and raises a question as to the procedure the Controller ought to follow before passing order under section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) The respondent-landlord instituted proceedings for eviction under the Act against the appellant, the tenant. One of the grounds on which eviction was sought was that the tenant was in arrears in the payment of the rent. The case of the respondent-landlord in the eviction application was that the construction of the premises in question was completed on 13-3-1964 and the appellant is the first tenant in the said premises and that the premises were let out on 27-4-1964. It was further averred that the tenant was irregular in paying the rent and he has not paid the rent regularly since 26-11-1967. After 26-11-1967, the appellant,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-24-1977
Reported in : 13(1977)DLT323
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J. (1) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners, Shri Muni Lal Vohra and Shri Hira Lal Vohra, praying that the order (Annexure A.6), dated 19th June, 1974, whereby the Assistant Assessor and Collector, Delhi Municipal Corporation, enhanced the rateable value of the property No. 2537/X, known was RamJas Building, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, from Rs. 44,010 to Rs. 82,350 as well as the order of Shri O. P. Singla, Additional District, Judge, Delhi, dated 23rd April, 1976, upholding on appeal the aforesaid order of the Assistant Assessor and Collector be quashed. The Delhi Municipal Corporation has been imp leaded as the first respondent and Shri O. P. Singia has been imp leaded as the second respondent.(2) The petitioners are the owners of the aforesaid Ramjas Building situated on Plot No. Ii, Block No. Iv, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, which bears the Municipal No. 2537/X. The petitioners let out the entire ground floor of the building with attached bath and lav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-27-1977
Reported in : AIR1978AP200
Smabasiva Rao, J.1. Is the operation of S. 56 (1) of the Andra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Abolition Act') limited only to the purposes of Ss. 55 and 56 (1) (a) and (b) of that Act? Cannot the Settlement Officer decide the question as to who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is when such a dispute arises whole considering the application or applications filed under S. 11 of the Abolition Act for granting ryotwari pattas and also when a similar question arises under the other provisions of the Abolition Act? A Full Bench of three Judges of this Court answered the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative in Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya : AIR1974AP85 (FB). A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Divan, C. J. and Ameraswari J. doubted the correctness of this view and felt that it required reconsideration. That is why as many as five of us are obliged to examine the question.2. The dispute ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-22-1977
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR633; 1977MhLJ587
Chandurkar, J.1. There are several petitions pending in this Court filed by litigants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it originally stood before the Constitution of India was amended by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, and the one question which now faces not only the litigants and the counsel but also the Court is, what is the extent of the impact of the newly introduced provisions in Articles 131A, 226, 226A and 228A of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Section 58 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as 'The Amending Act'. These thirteen petitions are, therefore, placed before this Full Bench as they raise certain questions which needed early authoritative determination and which were representative of some of the questions which arise in almost all pending matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India including matters in which interim orders have been made by this Court, the...
Tag this Judgment!