Court : Delhi
Reported in : 9(1973)DLT491; 1973RLR509
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) This revision has been referred for decision by a larger bench because of divergence of views expressed in the cases- Vas Dev v. Sohan Singh and others (1968) D.L.T. 492 and Inder Lal Sapra v. Brij Mohan (S.A.O. 300 of 1971) decided on May 24, 1972 on the question whether a judgment-debtor tenant.. during execution of the decree for eviction against him, on the ground of personal bona fide need of the landlord, can agitate the question that the need of the landlord had ceased to exist and, thereforee, the decree was inexecutable. (2) In a suit for eviction filed by the respondent (hereafter called 'the landlord') under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act. 1952 (hereafter called 'the 1952 Act') for eviction of the appellant (hereafter called 'the tenant') on the ground that the premises were required by him bona fide, the trial court on December 21, 1955 granted a decree for eviction in his favor on the basis of a compromise. According to the compromise, the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi210
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) Messrs Karan Chand Prem Chand Private Limited known as Sarabhai Chemicals are occupying as tenants a portion of the ground floor, including a loft. of building No. 12. Block No. 3. Asaf Ali Road. New Delhi. At first rent was being paid at the rate of Rs. 1,250.00 per month besides house-tax and actual charges for water and electricity. With effect from February 1. 1958, the rent was increased to Rs. 1,750.00 per month. House-tax and actual charges for water and electricity were in addition to that. (2) On January 4. 1961. Sarabhai Chemicals applied, under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for fixation of standard rent. At that time the premises belonged to Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh and his wife. Shrimati Lajwanti. and their son Gurbachan Singh. During the pendency of the proceedings the property was purchased by Messrs Urvinder Estates Private Limited. Afterwards Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh also died. (3) The new la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002IIAD(Delhi)261; 95(2002)DLT508; 2002(61)DRJ457; 2002RLR149
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner primarilychallenges the provisions of Sections 4, 6, 9 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 beingviolative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioneralso seeks a direction to the first respondent to rationalise the provisions of DelhiRent Control Act so that the petitioner is assured of receiving reasonable rent for hisproperties let out to the tenants. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a building bearing No. 40-42, Janpath, New Delhi. It is claimed that the said building was completed in the year 1938 at a cost of Rs. 2,50,362.50 and the same was let out to various tenants about 40-50 year ack. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the rent is pegged at a very low level which is highly unjust, unfair and unreasonable. The petitioner claims that his rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21of the Constitution have been abridged by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi820
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) These cross-appeals (Nos. 50-D and 103-D) were filed against the judgment and decree in a suit instituted on October 1, 1955 on behalf of Messrs Birdhi Chand Girdhari Lal Jain and six others. The suit was against Messrs Kannya Lal Sham Lal and five others. On April 15, 1961 it was partly decreed by Shri R. L. Lamba, Subordinate Judge First Class, Delhi. The decree passed in favor of the plaintiffs was for ejectment of the defendants from the portions shown red and yellow in the plan (Exhibit P/l) attached to the plaint and for recovering Rs. 20,836/10/8. The amount decreed comprised of Rs. 14,400.00 on account of arrears of rent, Rs. 4,836/10/8 as damages and Rs. 1,600.00 as electric charges. The plaintiffs were as well allowed proportionate cost of the suit. (2) In this appeal the defendants claimed that no decree should have been passed against them either for eviction or recovering any amount on account of arrears of rent, damages or electric charges. The judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1975Delhi236
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Civil Writ Petition came up initially for hearing before B. C. Misra J. who considered that it should be heard by a larger Bench. The Civil Writ Petition then came up before a Division Bench consisting of V. S. Deshpande and H B. C. Misra JJ. who referred it to a Full Bench. Although the Division Bench framed certain questions, which will be referred to later, for consideration by the Full Bench, the counsel arc agreed that the entire Writ Petition has been referred for being heard and decided by the Full Bench. (2) The Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner. M. v. Soi, praying that certain orders passed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee assessing the annual value of the petitioner's house for purposes of house-tax for the year 1963-64. 1964.65 ?'J 1965-66 be quashed. The respondents to the Writ Petition are (1) The New Delhi Municipal Committee, and (2) Shri S. C. Vaish, Additional District Magistrate, Delhi. (3) It is necessary at this st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi176; 23(1983)DLT148; 1983(4)DRJ161; 1983RLR73
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) The question involved in the appeal relates to the wires of Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act amended vis-a-vis Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as by this definition of the expression 'tenant' the tenancy in relation to premises let for residential purposes is heritable to a limited extent whereas the tenancy in relation to premises not let for residential purposes is not so. This definition in Section 2(1) has been introduced with retrospective effect.(2) The question has arisen in view of the order of reference dated 5th March, 1981 passed by Wad, J. while hearing Regular First Appeal No. 521/ 69. Regular First Appeal No. 211 of 1981 is also placed before the Full Bench in view of the order of Goswamy, J. dated 30th November, 1981 directing this appeal to be heard along with RFA. No. 521/69.(3) For understanding the controversy, we are giving salient facts of Rfa No. 521/69.(4) The plaintiffs/respondents had filed the Suit for possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1982Delhi87; 20(1981)DLT364; 1981(2)DRJ262; ILR1982Delhi253
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Smt Ahmedi Begum is the owner of the property known as 'Dharampur Lodge' situated near Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar in terms of the registered lease deed executed on 12th April, 1948 was inducted as a tenant in the said property for five years on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000.00 . On 3rd April, 1953 another lease deed was executed between the aforesaid parties for a further period of five years. The tenant was in arrears of rent and he failed to pay the same in spite of a notice of demand dated 3rd June, 1957. His tenancy was also terminated by the said notice. (2) On 28th August, 1957 Smt. Ahmedi Begum filed a suit for eviction and recovery against the said tenant. On 31st August, 1959 the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi passed a decree for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 32.554/4.00 . The decree-holder took out execution in the court of the Subordinate Judge which was transferred to this court under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT61
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This revision is directed against the older of the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge dated 13th March 1963 allowing the appeal and revers sing the order of a learned Subordinate Judg 1st Class dated 31st August 1961 whereby the plaintiff's suit. for recovery of Rs. l,080.00 and for ejectment against the defendant was decreed.(2) The suit in the trial Court had been instituted by Smt. Mohan Devi, wife of Shri Gopi Chand, forma pauperis on the allegations that M/s. Arora Provision Stores of Delhi was a tenant under her with regard to a khokha situated at Phatak Mishri Khan, Daryaganj. Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs.30.00 and that no rent had been paid from 1st February, 1951 to 31st January, 1954. On the pleadings, the following three principal issues were settled:-- 1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether any valid ntoice of demand was served upon the defeneant 3 Whether the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1993Delhi278
ORDER1. Milk is an essential commodity within the meaning of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The Central Government has the power to regulate production, supply, distribution etc. of milk and milk products as provided in S. 3 of the Act. The Central Government as provided in S. 9can also delegate its power to make orders under S. 3 of the Act and direct the powers to be exercised by such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or to such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government as may be specified in the direction. Section 2(d) provides that 'State Government' in relation to a Union Territory means the Administrator thereof. In the case of Union Territory of Delhi the Central Government by notification dated 9th June, 1978 delegated its powers under S. 3 of the Act to the State Government. By virtue of that delegation the Administrator of Delhi over a period of time has been issuing various orders for main...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi45; 1974RLR39
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) In this second appeal the only question which arises for decision is as to whether under the provisions of section 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') MurariLal appellant can be deemed to have become a tenant holding directly under the landlords in respect of the premises in his occupation on the same term and conditions on which Ranjit Singh tenant would have held from the landlords, if the tenancy had continued. (2) The premises to which this case relates is a godown which is part of a building having Municipal No. 11/953, situate in Kucha Qabil Attar, Chandni Chowk, Ward No. 11, Delhi. It is not disputed that the godown belonged to Haji Abdul Jabbar and was let out by him on June 19. 1954 to Ranjit Singh at a rent of Rs. 85.00 per month. In July 1956 Ranjit Singh sub-let the godown to Murari Lal without the consent of the landlord. (3) In April 1963 Haji Abdul Jabbar filed an application, under clause (a) of the proviso t...
Tag this Judgment!