Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-05-2002
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2304; 2003(3)KarLJ505
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Respondents 1 to 6 were the petitioners and petitioners 1 and 2 were respondents 1(1) and 1(5) in HRC No. 10568 of 1994, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Respondents 7 to 13 herein were the respondents 1(2), 1(3), 1(4), 1(7), 1(8), 1(9) and 1(10) respectively in the said eviction petition. For convenience, respondents 1 to 6 will be referred to as 'landlords' and the petitioners 1 and 2 and respondents 7 to 13 will together be referred as 'tenants'.2. The said eviction petition was filed by the landlords against the tenants (the L.Rs of A. Rajagopal who was running Mercury Press in the petition schedule premises) under Section 21(1) proviso (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 'old HRC Act' or 'old Act'). The petition schedule premises is a non-residential premises, measuring more than 14 sq. nits. The said petition was allowed by order dated 17-11-2001 under proviso (h) to Section 21(1) of the said Act. Feeling aggr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-18-2002
Reported in : 2002IIAD(Delhi)261; 95(2002)DLT508; 2002(61)DRJ457; 2002RLR149
..... rent would be the standard rent. but in case the basic rent of the premises per annum exceeds rs. 600/-, the basic rent together with ten per cent of such basic rent would be the standard rent. sub-section (1)(a)(2) of section 6 deals with the standard rent of residential premises which have been let out at any time on or after june 2, 1944 in respect of which rent has been fixed under the repealed delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act, 1947 (19 of 1947),or the repealed delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 (38 of 1952 ..... for the fixing and revision of fair rate and recovery of possession in respect of hotels and lodging houses; (j) provide for a simpler and speedier system of disposal of rent cases through rent authorities and rent tribunal and by barring thejurisdiction of all courts except the supreme court; and (k) enhance the penalties for infringement of the provisions of the legislation by landlords and tenants.' 13. thus, it appears that the parliament was conscious of the shortcomings in the delhi rent control act, 1958 ..... unreasonable and unfair restriction needs to be eliminated from the provisions dealing with standard rent. 24. ms. geeta mittal, learned counsel for the union of india submitted that the supreme court in d.c. bhatia and ors. v. union of india and ors., : (1995)1scc104 ,has upheld the provisions of the delhi rent control act, 1958, and, thereforee, the challenge to sections 4, 6 and 9 thereof must be rejected. she also submitted that theprovisions .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-14-2002
Reported in : 2002(6)BomCR29; (2002)4BOMLR41; 2002(4)MhLj568
V.C. Daga, J. 1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Decreeof the Addl. District Judge, Mapusa in Regular CivilAppeal No.64/1990 dated 31.1.1996, reversing the Judgmentand Decree passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, atPanaji in Civil Suit No.35/80/C dated 28.9.1990, whereinthe suit for eviction has been found to be notmaintainable, in view of the extension of Rent ControlLegislation to the area in which the suit building issituated.FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. The factual background of the case can bestated quite shortly.3. The original plaintiff, late Shri DattatrayaWalaulikar vide Agreement dated 2.8.1971 had allowed oneVasudeo Dhempe to use western half portion of the housesituated in Village of Nerul, Bardez, Goa on monthlypayment of Rs.25/- for a period of 36 months on the leaveand licence basis.4. The original licensee, said Shri VasudeoDhempe left for heavenly abode on 2.7.1972. The presentdefendants continued to use and occupy the said house ashis heirs and successors. The de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-18-2002
Reported in : 2003(2)BomCR698
R.M. Lodha, J.1. On 23-7-2002 the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration and Food (Health) Authority for the State of Maharashtra issued an order prohibiting for a period of 5 years with effect from 1-8-2002 the sale of Gutka and Pan Masala containing tobacco or not containing tobacco by whatever name called, in the State of Maharashtra and, accordingly, directed that no person shall himself or any person on his behalf, shall manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute Gutka or Pan Masala containing tobacco or not containing tobacco. The order was issued by Food (Health) Authority for the State of Maharashtra in the exercise of powers conferred by Clause (iv) of section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The order dated 23rd July 2002 reads thus:'COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND FOOD (HEALTH) AUTHORITY, MAHARASHTRA STATE Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai 400 051.Dated the 23rd July, 2002.ORDERPREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954.N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-28-2002
Reported in : 2002(6)ALD233
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Introduction :2. The petitioner was granted Form IL 24 licence under the provisions of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short, the Act), and A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (for short, the Rules) during the year 1998-1999 permitting him to run a retail Indian Liquor shop at Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal. It was renewed from time to time and now it is valid till 31.3.2003. The second respondent herein, Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Visakhapatnam, who is the licensing authority granted Form-IL24 licence on 5.7.2002 to the third respondent to sell all kinds of Indian Liquor/Foreign Liquor on the premises in S.No. 42/3' of Laxmipuram Panchayat, Pendurti Mandal. This licence is assailed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the second respondent violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India and denied 'equality before law' to the petitioner.Facts :2. Facts in brief leading to filing of the case are as follows. The second respondent i...
Tag this Judgment!