Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1989Raj24; 1988(2)WLN197
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This second appeal filed by the defendant Gopal Krishan Singhal, arises out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent filed by the respondent, Ram Lal Goyal, against the appellant, in respect of the property bearing No. AMC 32/123B(Old), now renumbered as 24/134 (new) situated in Kaiserganj, Ajmer. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that the said property was let out to him by Shri N. N. Tondon on a monthly rent of Rs. 27/-. Shri N. N. Tondon had filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 229/64) for eviction against the plaintiff-respondent and in the said suit a decree for eviction was passed by the Munsiff Ajmer City, Ajmer on 20th August, 1965. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was further that the appellant was in occupation of the suit premises as tenant of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent sought the ejectment of the appellant on two grounds, namely, (i) that the appellant had not paid the rent for the premises from 1st July, 1966 to 31st May, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(1)Raj192
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. Two ancient maxims viz; (1) Judicis est jus dicere non dare: The judge's duty is to declare law and not to make it and (2) Talis interpretation semper fienda est, ut euitetur absurdum el inconveniens, et ne judicium sit illusorium: That interpretation must be chosen which avoids an absurdity or inconvenience and which does not make a decision of court illusory, are coupled with the controversy involved in the present seventeen writ petitions, whereby the Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, hereinafter referred-to as 'the New Act' in toto and Section 32(3)(a) of this New Act and Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, later styled as 'the Old Act', have been challenged by declaring them as ultravires to the Constitution of India. Though different reliefs have been sought in these petitions but broadly, they are of three categories.The relief sought in the first set of petitions is to declare the Ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1974WLN199
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff-landlords from the appellate judgment and decree by the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer who upheld the decree against the original tenant Ramjidas, and one sub-tenant Heeralal, but dismissed the suit against the heirs of Suryanand-another subtenant in respect of the ground-floor of the suit premises.2. It is undisputed that the premises in question were originally let out to Ramjidas who sublet the ground-floor (except one Baithak) on rent of Rs. 16/- to Suryanand In the suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiffs, not only the tenant Ramjidas but the alleged sub-tenants Heeralal and Suryanand were also impleaded on the ground that a part of the premises had been sublet to them without the consent of the land-lord. Two additional grounds ware relied upon for ejectment, viz. defaults in payment of rent and nuisance. All the defendants resisted the suit and after trial the learned Munsiff, Ajmer City (East) held that all the three grounds ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN254
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant against whom a decree for ejectment was passed by the Munsiff, Alwar and on appeal by the defendant the same are upheld by the District Judge, Alwar.2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Firm Bhonreylai Hiralal, Kedalganj, Alwar and its partners respondent No. 2 to 6 filed the suit in the Court of Munsiff, Alwar on 10-2-62 alleging that the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 constitute a joint Hindu family and carry on business under the name and style: Firm Bhonrey lal Hiralal, which was also registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It was alleged that one Thakur Shivelal Singh, Muafidar of Thikana Burja sold a place of land measuring 370,10 'x'3' situated in the city of Alwar to the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed dated 22-7-1956 for a conit sideration of Rs. 3000/-, and that the defendant was occupying a portion of this land measuring .27' x 33' as a tenant of the vendor Shivelal Singh for which the rent settled was Rs. 2/8/- per m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj819; 2003(4)WLC790
Goyal, J.1. Following common question of law arises in these four appeals:-'Whether the proceedings for fixation of standard rent under the repealed Act pending on the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Rent control Act, 2001, would be governed by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950 (for short the old Act) or by the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 (New Act) which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.03.?'2. Civil First Appeal Nos. 294/03, and 373/2003, respectively filed by tenants and landlord are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2003, passed in Civil Suit No. 28/2000, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, while dismissing the suit for eviction fixed Rs. 2500/- per month as standard rent under Section 6 of the Old Act. The tenants have come against the order of fixation of standard rent while the landlord has filed the appeal challenging the judgment and decree dismissing the suit for eviction as well ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(3)WLC501; 1997(2)WLN15
R.R. Yadav, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.8.96 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jodhpur city.2. The instant appeal arises out from the following circumstances.3. The land lord-plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent before the learned trial court on the ground inter alia that the tenant-defendant-appellant has committed default in payment of rent, changed residential accommodation into a commercial accommodation, broken the terms of the tenancy by using the disputed premises for his business activities and built his own suitable residential house where he is residing with his family members.4. It is averred in the plaint that the tenant-defendant-appellant is using the disputed premises exclusively for business purpose whereas he was admitted to the tenancy of the said premis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.342/2003 Lehri Bai Vs. Bherulal Date of Order :29. 07.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr. K.C. Samdariya, for the petitioner. Mr. Alkesh Agarwal, for the respondent. BY THE COURT : REPORTABLE This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 20.2.2003 passed by the executing court, whereby objections filed by the petitioner under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC have been dismissed. Brief facts of the case may be noticed thus : the respondent-decree-holder filed Civil Original Suit No.164/1980 on 16.10.1980 seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the suit premises and for arrears of rent. The suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent, denial of title and reasonable and bonafide necessity under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 ('the Act of 1950'). The suit was set ex-parte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2001Raj87
Mathur, J. 1. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R. Yadav and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Godara, as his Lordship then was) considered the following prima facie subsiantial and intricate questions as of general importance in these appeals: '1. Whether provision for special Appeals can be said to substitute of letters patent after enforcement of the Constitution? 2. Whether special Appeal is maintainable only against those matters which originally originate in the High Court with an avowed object to check and balance? 3. Whether provision relating to life of an ordinance enshrined under Government of India Act 1935 and thereafter under the Constitution are applicable to the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949. If so, its effect in filing Special Appeals after expiry of six months from the date of issuance of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949? 4. Whether Special Appeals can be filed under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 even in those procee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(2)WLN440
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The Division Bench of this court (Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R. Yadav and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Godara, as his lordship then was) considered the following prima facie substantial and intricate questions as of general importance in these appeals:1. Whether provision for special Appeals can be said to substitute of letters patent after enforcement of the Constitution?2. Whether Special Appeal is maintainable only against those matters which originally originate in the High Court with an avowed object to check and balance?3. Whether provision relating to life of an ordinance enshrined under Government of India Act, 1935 and thereafter under the Constitution are applicable to the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. If so, its effect in. filing Special Appeals after expiry of six months from the date of insurance of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949?4. Whether Special Appeals can be filed under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 even in those procee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1962Raj190
Modi J.1. This reference originally came before a learned single Judge and has in turn been made by him to a larger bench.2. The questions referred to this bench for answer are as follows:(1) Whether Section 2(i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. XVII of 1950) as amended by the Amending and Extending Act, 1957 (Act No. 34 of 1957) in so far as it applies to the Cantonment Area of Nasirabad and Section 2(2) of the said Act which brings into force at once Sections 1 to 4 and 27 to 31 of that Act and authorises the State of Rajasthan to extend the remaining provisions to such areas in that State and from such date as may from time to time be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette in so far as it affects the Cantonment area of Nasirabad is beyond the legislative competence of the Rajasthan State Legislature for the reason that the subject-matter covered by the said Rajastham Act is within the exclusive competence of the Union Parl...
Tag this Judgment!