Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: delhi and ajmer rent control act 1952 repealed section 28 recovery of possession by manager of a hotel or the owner of a lodging house Sorted by: old Court: orissa

Oct 21 1959 (HC)

Ranchhorlalji Vs. Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division a ...

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1960Ori88

Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the appellate order dated the 2nd September, 1958 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur, maintaining the order of the District Magistrate of Sundargarh declining to renew the temporary license granted to the petitioner to exhibit cinema films in a temporary building at Rajgangpur.2. Rajgangpur was formerly a village in Sundargarh district but it has gradually grown into a fairly big town consequent on the establishment of a Cement factory and other industrial concerns there. On the 1st January, 1951, the petitioner was first given a temporary license to exhibit cinema films at Rajgangpur. This license was renewed from time to time after the expiry of the usual period of three months and the last period of renewal expired on 31-12-57. The building where the cinema films were exhibited was a temporary structure but it appears that the petitioner w...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1989 (HC)

Sri Jagannath Aurvedic Pharmacy Vs. House Rent Controller, Cuttack and ...

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1990Ori168

Pasayat, J. 1. Petitioner, a tenant under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has moved this Court in an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution with a prayer for issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the order dt. 23-9-1988 passed in M.R.C. Case No. 50 of 1987 pending in the Court of the House Rent Controller, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as 'the Controller') holding that the proceeding before him was maintainable and a further prayer for declaring that the Controller has no jurisdiction to proceed with the aforesaid case and that all actions taken by him after 4-5-1988 are without jurisdiction and null and void. 2. The challenge as indicated in the writ application and the submissions made before us is based on a very short and interesting argument that after 4-5-1988 the Act ceased to have effect and therefore, any action taken in a proceeding which was instituted under the said Act, prior...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //