Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT704
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This second appeal has been preferred under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 195S (hereinafter called the Act) from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24th July, 1967 dismissing the appellant's appeal and affirming the order of the First Additional Rent Controller dated 23rd September, 1966 holding that the landlord bonafide required the premises in question for occupation as residence for himself and for his family members dependent upon him and that he was nto in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation and on his finding, making an order of eviction against the tenant with a direction to vacate the premises Within six months from the date of the order. buth the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal left the parties to bear their own costs. (2) On second appeal, which would nto lie under the statute unless it involved some substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant has, at the very outset, pressed his applic...
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 : AIR1968Delhi299
I.D. Dua, C.J.1. At the time of admission of this revision (C. R. No. 67 of 1967), Shri Sushil Malhtora and Shri R. N. Malhtora appearing in support of the petitioner Sant Ram cited before Andley, J. Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath, 1963 P. L. R. 528, a decision by Falshaw, C. J. And Chuhar Mal v. Balak Ram, 1964 Cur Lj 119 = (1964) 66 PLR 503 (Dulat and Pandit JJ.) in support of their plea for admission of this revision. Shanker. J. felt doubtful of the correctness of the view taken in these two decisions, with the result that while admitting the revision, he directed that the same should be heard after ntoice by a larger Bench. It is in these circumstances that this revision has been placed before us for final disposal.2. The main question arising for settlement by us relates to the interpretation of section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act No. Iii of 1949 (hereafter described as the Punjab Act). The provision of law requiring interpretation may now be reproduced.'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT284
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) At the time of admission of this revision (C.R. No. 67 of 1967), Shri Sushil Malhtora and Shri R.N. Malhtora appearing in support of the petitioner Sant Ram cited before Andly. J. Panna Lal v. Shri Jagan Nath a decision Falshaw C.J. and Chuhar Mal v. Shri Balak Ran, (Dulat and Pandit JJ.) insupport of their plea for admission of this revision. Shankar.J.felt doubtful of the correctness of the view taken in these two decision, with the result that while admitting the revision he directed that the same should be heard after ntoice by a larger Bench. It is in these circumstances that this revision has been placed before us for final disposal. (2) The main question arising for settlement by us relates to the interpretation of section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Kent Restriction Act No. 1II of 1949 (hereafter described as the PunJab Act). The provision of law requiring interpretation may now be reproduced :- '13.* * * * (3) (a) A landlord may apply to the Contro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT559
I.D. Dua, J.(1) The life Insurance Corporation of India has presented this revision under Section 35 of the Dei and Ajmer Rent Control Act 38 of 1952 hereafter called the Act) against the order of the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers dated 5th April, 1.961 whereby he allowed the appeal from the order of a learned subordinate Judge 1st Class dated 2ath September , 1859 and dismissed the life Insurance Corporation's suit for ejectment which has been deereed by the trial Court. (2) The only question which fell for determination by the trial Court was whether P. Surie. the original tenant of the Life Insurance Corporation, had, by the agreement Exhibit D. 2, sublet, assigned or toherwise parted with possession of the whole or any part of the premis- es in question so as to have become liable to be evicted from the tenan- ted premise under section 13(1) Proviso (b)(i) of the Act. The trial Court en a consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion tha...
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 : ILR1970Delhi376
S.N. Andley, J.(1) Shop No. 3865/4, Khirki Taffazul Hussain, Urdu Bazar, Delhi was constructed by the appellant in June 1957. On October 1, 1957, it was let to the respondent at a rent of Rs. 30.00 per month. Upon the application of the respondent under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the '1952 Act'), the Rent Court by its order dated November 2!, I960 fixed the standard rent of the shop at Rs. 11.46 Paise per month with effect from March 22, 1958. By the time the order fixing the standard rent was passed, the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the '1958 Act') had come into force. By notice dated December 29, 1960 the appellant called upon the respondent to pay the arrears of rent for the months of November and December 1960 failing which an application for eviction of the respondent was threatened to be filed The arrears of rent were demanded at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month. The respondent replied to the notice on January ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 6(1970)DLT245
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the order of Shri Des Raj Dhameja, Additional District Judge, Delhi, setting aside the order of the executing Court and accepting the appeal of the respondent-tenant. The learned Judge has held that in respect of the premises covered by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter called 'the 1958 Act') but exempted from the operation of Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereafter called 'the 1952 Act') the tenant was nto liable to be evicted in execution of a decree for eviction passed against him by the civil court before the 1958 Act came ed after the 1st of June, 1951, but before 9th of June, 1955, and the case was, thereforee, covered by section 50 of the 1958 Act and the proceedings for his eviction stood abated and the decree was inexecutable. The landlord contested this application and the parties went on trial. On the basis of evidence produced, the executing court held that the construction of the premises had be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi892
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The common questions arising for decision in both these Writ Petitions are:- (1) whether a finding under section 14(1)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act of 1958) (corresponding to section 13(1)(g) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952) that the premises are unfit for human habitation and have to be demolished for reconstruction acts as rest indicate in a subsequent proceeding before the competent authority acting under section 19(4)(b) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, (hereinafter called the Act of 1956) and (2) if so, does this finding preclude the competent authority from acting under section 19(4)(a) of the Act of 1956. (2) In Civil Writ 708 of 1969, the landlord (Respondent No. 2) obtained an order of eviction against the tenant (petitioner) under section 14(1)(g) of the Act of 1958 on the ground that the landlord required the premises bona fide for the purpose of rebuilding the same and such wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1970Delhi232
1. The dispute, in this appeal against an award of an arbitrator, relates to the requisitioning of a three storeye building, known as Sat Narain Building, with out-houses and extensive lawns, situated on Dina Nath Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi.2. Sat Narain building was first requisitioned by the Government, in May, 1944 but was released in June, 1945. It was again requisitioned from the 1st November, 1947, by the requisition order dated 21st October, 1947. The order was issued under the Delhi Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Ordinance, 1947. The owners of the requisitiond premises had filed a suit questioning the validity of the order of requisition. On discovering that there was some lucuna in the order of requisition, the Government had issued a fresh order of requisition on the 23rd June, 1948. The possession of the requisitioned premises was taken over by the Government on the 5th July, 1948. The Government and the owners failed to agree with respect to the amount of compensation pa...
Tag this Judgment!