Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1305; [1964]4SCR647
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 392 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 13, 1962, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench at Delhi) in Civil Revision No. 427-D of 1957. Bishan Narain, O. C. Mathur, Ravinder Narain and J.B.Dadachanji for the appellants. A.V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. K. Jain, for respondent 1. S. N. Andley, for respondent No. 2. August 29, 1963. The judgment of S. K. Das, Acting C.J. and M. Hidayatullah, J. was delivered by S.K. Das Acting C.J. Sarkar J. delivered a dessenting opinion. S. K. DAS, Acting Chief Justice.--With much regret, we have come to a conclusion different from that of our learned brother Sarkar, J. as respects the true scope and effect of S. 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Control Act of 1958. The Control Act of 1958 repeals the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, hereinafter called the Control Act of 1952, in so far as that Act was applicable to the Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC646; [1962]2SCR947
S.K. Das, J. 1. These are 16 appeals which have been heard together. For facility of considering them on merits, it would be convenient to classify them into three categories. In the first category fall Civil Appeals Nos. 172 to 184 of 1958. In the second category are two appeals, Civil Appeals Nos. 185 and 186 of 1958. In the third category falls Civil appeal No. 171 of 1958. The appeals in the first two categories arise out of a judgment in revision rendered by the High Court of Punjab at Simla on August 26, 1954. That decision was reported in British Medical Stores v. L. Bhagirath Mal I.L.R(1955) . 8 Pun 639. The appeal in the third category arises out of a short order of the said High Court dated March 7, 1956, by which it dismissed an application made by the appellant-tenant under Art. 227 of the Constitution. It appears that the order was based on the decision given by the High Court in the first two categories of cases. The appeals in the first two categories have been brought t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC1165; (1969)1SCC724; [1969]3SCR855
1. This is an appeal by a tenant who had rented a shop No. 2687 in Kinari Bazar, Delhi from the respondent on Rs. 13.50 P per month. In those premises he was selling Usha sewing machines and fans. It appears that the level of the shop was too high from the road and his clients were troubled in going to his shop and so he lowered the level and thereby altered the premises to suit his convenience. The landlord thereupon filed a suit against him for his eviction Under Section 13(1)(k) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The suit was filed on November 13, 1957. The trial court ordered on February 19, 1959 ejectment and payment of Rs. 145/- as arrears of rent. An appeal against the order of the trial court was dismissed by the appellate authority on November 16, 1959. A revision application was then filed by the tenant on March 25, 1960. During the course of that revision he invoked the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 which had come into force on February 9, 1959 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC302; (1976)4SCC535; [1977]1SCR731
M.H. Beg, J.1.This appeal by special leave is directed against the unanimous decision of a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court. The case before us arose from a Writ Petition filed by the respondent, M.N. Soi, praying that certain assessment orders, together with the order under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act III of 1911, passed on 11th February, 1966, by an Additional District Magistrate of Delhi relating to the house of the petitioner at 15, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, modifying assessments on appeal, be quashed. The respondent landlord submitted that assessment for purposes of rating, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(1 )(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act III of 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and, in particular, the interpretation of the words 'may reasonably be expected to be let from year to year', impose upon the assessing authorities the obligation not to assess at a higher rental value than the 'standard rent'. It is not disputed that standard rent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1003; [1966]2SCR544
Sarkar, J. 1. This appeal was filed with special leave of this Court granted on August 14, 1964. Various interesting questions of law were sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant but in our view they do not arise at this stage. The appeal must be confined to the points decided in the courts below. 2. The case appears to us to be somewhat out of the ordinary. One Mehtab Singh was the owner of a certain building known as Akbar Building, situate in Mohalla Ganda Nala, Gali Rajan, Delhi. The appellant was a tenant under him in respect of certain accommodation in the building. On June 3, 1955, Mehtab Singh filed a suit under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 against the appellant for his ejectment. On October 11, 1956 that suit was decreed. The appellant filed an appeal against that decree which, however, was dismissed on March 27, 1957. He thereafter moved the High Court of Punjab in revision but here also he was unsuccessful. The precise date of the dismissal of the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(5)SC49; 1994(3)SCALE712; (1994)5SCC465; [1994]Supp2SCR495
S. Mohan, J.1. The facts leading to the civil appeal are as under:2. One Ahmedi Begum was the owner of 'Dharampur Lodge' situated near clock Tower, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. She leased out the entire property to S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar. The lease was for a period of 5 years evidenced by registered lease deed dated 12th April, 1948. On expiry of the said lease another lease dated 3rd April, 1953 was executed for a further period of 5 years which was also duly registered.3. Both these lease deeds empowered the lessee S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar to sub let the whole or a part of the demise property. S Sardul Singh Caveeshar sub-let various portions of the property to several subtenants. One such sub-letting was in favour of the appellant, Manphul Singh Sharma in April, 1948 and another portion to Yog Raj Goswami in August 1956.4. On 1st of September, 1956 the tenant S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar by a registered lease deed sub-let the entirety of the property in favour of Surinder Kumar Sharma. That...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3148; 2008(3)ALD147(SC); 2008(56)BLJR1811; 148(2008)DLT705(SC); JT2008(5)SC376; 2008(6)SCALE325; (2008)5SCC287; 2008(3)ICC326; 2008(3)Supreme37; 2008AIRSCW3324; 2008AIRSCW3324; 2008(3)ICC326; 2008(3)Supreme37
..... by the landlord who is the owner of such premises for occupation as a residence for himself or his family and that he has no other suitable accommodation;explanation:-for the purposes of this clause, 'residential premises' include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes:....(vi) after 6 years, the delhi rent control act, 1958 was enacted. the preamble of this act shows that it is a legislation for the control of rents and evictions and of rates of hotels and lodging houses, and for the lease of vacant premises to government, in certain areas in the union territory of delhi. section 2(i) of that act defines the premises ..... out flat no. 28-e, connaught place, new delhi to national insurance company limited for non-residential use. subsequently, the national insurance company limited became life insurance corporation of india. the petitioner made efforts to convince the corporation that the premises are required for his bona fide use and occupation but could not convince the concerned authorities. he, therefore, filed an application for recovery of possession. the same was dismissed by the high court. he then filed writ petition questioning the constitutionality of section 14(1)(e .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1360; [1967]3SCR59
Bhargava, J. 1. A suit for ejectment on the ground of failing to pay arrears of rent was instituted against the appellant, Bant Singh Gill, by the respondents under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (No. 38 of 1952) - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952', on the 27th February, 1958. On 9th February, 1959, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (No. 59 of 1958) - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1958', came into force and became applicable to the premises which were the subject-matter of he pending suit. On 13th March, 1961, the appellant, relying on the provisions of s. 50(2) of the Act of 1958, filed an application before the trial Court requesting it to hold that the suit had abated on the ground that the suit related to premises the construction of which had been completed after the 1st day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955. The trial Court, after taking into account the evidence, recorded a finding that the appellant had failed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1317; (1964)66PLR690
Das Gupta, J.1. In a suit for ejectment instituted on September 8, 1958 the plaintiff who is the respondent before us now made an application under Section 13(5) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act No. XXXVIII of 1952). He prayed for an order to be made on defendant-tenant to deposit all the arrears of rent and future monthly rent in accordance with law by the 15th of the following month. The arrears of rent were claimed to be Rs. 722/7/-upto the 30th June 1960. The original rent was stated to be Rs. 64/8/- and with effect from August 1, 1959 the rent was claimed at Rs. 70.95 np.2. This application was resisted by the tenant who in his reply dated August 1, 1960 stated that the rate of rent had continued to be at Rs. 64-8-0 and only Rs. 516/- was due at the rate of Rs. 64/8/- as arrears upto June 30, 1960. He added that he was prepared to deposit it.3. The Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, passed orders on the application on August 1, 1960. The relevant portion of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1969(2)LC280(SC)
Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court, Delhi, accepting the revision under Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (XXXVIII of 1952) here with referred to as the Act, filed by Janendra Kumar Jain, respondent before us, hereinafter called defendant No. 8. By this judgment the High Court set aside the concur rent findings of fact given by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, and the learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi, that the All India Jain Digamber Parishad hereinafter referred to as the Parishad had sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises, Rishi Bhawan, let out to it in May 1944 by Maharaj Krishan, appellant before us & hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff. 2. The main complaint of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court was not right in holding that the courts below had misread the evidence in the case, and it had exceeded its powers u...
Tag this Judgment!