1
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-29-1992
Reported in : 48(1992)DLT449; 1992(24)DRJ94; 1992RLR394
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The issue raised in this civil revision petition under the provisions o,f Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') lies within a very narrow compass and is thus being disposed of at the admission stage itself.(2) The petitioner is a tenant under the respondent in a portion of the ground floor of house No. 17/12, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. The landlady filed an eviction petition against him in October, 1988, invoking ground (h) of proviso to section 14(1) of the Act to the effect that the tenant during the pendency of the tenancy had acquired vacant possession of a flat, which was allotted to him by Delhi Development Authority; possession whereof had been offered. Besides alleging that a number of property brokers were visiting the tenant for either letting out the said flat or sale thereof. it was contended that in any case when the respondent had been allotted another residential accommodation, he was liable to be evicted from the tena...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-27-1992
Reported in : AIR1993All72
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions challenging the orders of the Consolidation authorities by whichthe claim of respondent No. 4 has been accepted regarding his 1/2 share in the disputed khatas.2. The parties are related to each other as given in the following pedigree. Elan | Shital | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | P | Ram ---------------- Bakshi | | | Parsan | | | Ganesh | | | Bodi | | | Mahadeo | Gaji | ------------------------------------- Rampher | | Angnu ------------------------------------- Raja Ram | Sita Ram | Jokhu3. The dispute relates to two khatas namely, Khata No. 215 and Khata No. 220 situate in village Noorpur, Pergana Sikandara district Allahabad. Even prior to the start of the consolidation operation in the village in question, there was litigation between the parties and their predecessors-in-interest regarding Khata No. 215. In the year 1958 Raja Ram and Sita Ram filed suit under S. 229B of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-22-1992
Reported in : AIR1992SC1239; JT1992(3)SC174; 1992(1)SCALE868; 1992Supp(2)SCC250; [1992]2SCR670; 1992(2)LC555(SC)
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated October 6, 1980 in M.P. No. 12/73 arising out of proceedings initiated by Shiv Ram, respondent No. 1 herein, against Malkhan under Section 248(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), for his ejectment from 19 Bighas 8 Biswas of land in Village Juara, District Morena, Madhya Pradesh, on the ground that he was in unauthorised possession of the said land. 2. In Village Juara, District Morena, falling in the former Gwalior State, there is a temple of Shri Ram Janakiji. 78 Bighas 17 Biswas of agricultural land had been given, by way of maufi, for the temple by the ruler of the former Gwalior State. Vasudev Rao, father of respondent No. 1, was the Pujari of the said temple and he was described as the Maufidar in the revenue records. The said maufi grant was revoked and the maufi land was handed over to the Department...
Tag this Judgment!