Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-04-1962
Reported in : AIR1963SC120; (1963)GLR37(SC); [1963]3SCR312
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Gujarat. 2. The appellant was a tenant of certain residential premises situate at Anand, and belonging to the respondents-landlords. Under a contract between the parties, he held them at Rs. 75/- per mensem according to Indian Calendar. In 1951 the appellant applied for fixation of standard rent. On March 31, 1954, the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 25/- per mensem. The appellant did not pay the arrears of rent from July 27, 1949, to July 5, 1954. On October 16, 1954, the landlords gave him notice to quit the premises stating therein that rent for over six months was in arrears and that he was to quit on the last day of the month of tenancy which was Kartak Vad 30 of Samvat Year 2011. The appellant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. On December 16, 1954, the respondents filed the suit for ejectment basing their claim for ejectment on the provisions of s. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-04-1962
Reported in : AIR1963Cal470,67CWN522
Bijayesh Mukherji, J.1. The judgment I render now governs two second appeals 67 and 68 of 1957 -- each by a tenant defendant arising out of actions in ejectment instituted in the Small Cause Court, Calcutta on December 22, 1954 concerning parts of 134/3A Cornwallis Street on the ground floor.2. In '67', the appellant is Prativa Pal who, it is said, was the tenant of a shop room on a rent of Rs. 35/-a month payable according to the English calendar month. In '68', the appellant is Prativa's father, Girish Chandra Ghosh, who, it is said, held the adjacent shop room in the same premises on the same terms as his daughter.3. The plaintiff in each of the two actions in ejectment is Janhabi Charan Chatterjee. Necessarily he is the sole respondent in each of the two appeals before me.4. The two suits for eviction -- one against the father and the other against the daughter -- were groundedon default in payment of rent from June 1953 to January 1954 -- a little more than three occasions of two ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-09-1962
Reported in : AIR1964SC980; [1963(6)FLR251]; (1963)ILLJ536SC; [1963]Supp1SCR993
Sinha, C.J. 1. This petition, under Art. 32 of the Constitution, challenges the vires of certain provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act (19 of 1952) which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act, and the scheme framed thereunder. The respondents to this petition are the Union of India and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 2. The petition is founded on the following allegations. The petitioners, 5 in number, are citizens of India and are carrying on business of running a restaurant and general stores under the name and style of 'Messrs George Restaurant and Stores' at 20, Appollo Street, Fort, Bombay-1, since September, 1958. They are running this business as a partnership firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The firm employs 43 persons, including cooks, waiters, tea-makers, bill clerks and two store-clerks. Besides paying salary to their employees, the petitioners give them free food and other personal allowances, which it is not necessary to set out ...
Tag this Judgment!