Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC646; [1962]2SCR947
..... on which the application of the appellant was dismissed disappears and the application must now be dealt with in accordance with law. our attention has, however, been drawn to the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 (act no. xxxviii of 1952), which by s. 46 repealed the control act, 1947. that section, however, contains a saving clause which is as ..... ground is not correct and the application of the tenant-appellant for fixation of standard rent must now be determined in accordance with law. it would be for the competent authorities to consider now the effect of s. 46 of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 or of any other law, bearing on the question which may ..... not exceeding 7-1/2 per cent of the cost of improvement. 27. these are, however, no grounds for holding the impugned provisions to be unconstitutional. the delhi and ajmer-marwara rent control act, 1947, came into force on 24-3-1947 originally for two years only and s. 7-a with schedule iv were introduced in september 1947. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1305; [1964]4SCR647
..... from the room. it is out of this suit that the present appeal arises and the question is--is the appellant liable to be evicted? section 13 of the delhi and ajmer rent act, 1952 which had come into force on june 9, 1952 and governed the case, prohibited courts from directing eviction of a tenant at the suit of a landlord ..... now proceed to read s. 57 of the control act of 1958. that section is in these terms: "57. (1) the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, in so far as it is applicable to the union territory of delhi, is hereby repealed. (2)notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said act pending, at the commencement of this ..... 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 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC1165; (1969)1SCC724; [1969]3SCR855
..... '. that is the view which the high court has taken and we think rightly. the proviso did not apply and the matter had to be governed by the old delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 which had been repealed.6. it was contended before us that this legislation was intended to soften action against tenants still further and that the policy of ..... , because the concurrent finding of the courts of fact is that it did so. this question was not raised before us. therefore, if section 13(1)(k) of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 applied, the eviction of the tenant was the proper order to make in view of the finding that he had caused substantial damage to the premises. however ..... say nothing of the amendments which were made in the body of each of the acts as they came. we are concerned first with the act of 1952, namely. the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952. section 13(1)00 of that act gave a right to the landlord to evict a tenant who, whether before or after the commencement of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC302; (1976)4SCC535; [1977]1SCR731
..... buildings assessable to tax, lays down :provided further that in respect of any land or building the standard rent of which has been fixed under the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, the rateable value thereof shall not exceed the annual amount of the standard rent so fixed. 13. mr. s. t. desai, basing his argument on this provision, contended that, as there is ..... not been questioned before us, that the fixation of rent in 1941, under the new delhi house rent control order, 1939, continues to be valid notwithstanding the repeal of the control order by section 15 of the delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act, 1947, which, in its turn, was repealed by section 46 of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952. the repealing provisions maintained intact the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1003; [1966]2SCR544
..... 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 ..... also that no civil court had jurisdiction to entertain it in view of s. 50 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 which had come into force on february 19, 1959 repealing the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 in so far as that act applied to delhi, as he continued to be a tenant of the rooms in spite of the decree in favour ..... issues nos. 2 and 3 together and held that the real question involved in them was whether the appellant was a tenant. he observed that s. 2(1) of the delhi rent control act, 1958 no doubt provided that a tenant for the purpose of the act would 'not include any person against whom any order or decree for eviction has been .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(5)SC49; 1994(3)SCALE712; (1994)5SCC465; [1994]Supp2SCR495
..... tenant, filed objections to the effect that he was a lawful sub-tenant and became a direct tenant under the decree holder by virtue of section 20 of the delhi & ajmer rent control act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 1952 act). his claim was negative both by the learned single judge and the division bench of the high court ..... pay due regard to section 57 of the 1958 act. that says:57. repeal and saving:(1) the delhi & ajmer rent control act, 1952 (38 of 1952) in so far as it is applicable to the union territory of delhi is hereby repealed.(2) notwithstanding such repeal all suits and other proceedings under the said act pending at the commencement ..... notwithstanding this finding, the appeals came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 31st of july, 1981, on the only ground that under section 17 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 1958 act), the appellant had not served notice on the owner ahmedi begum. that being so, the protection available under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1360; [1967]3SCR59
..... of 1952 and not under the act of 1958. section 57 of the act of 1958 reads :- '57. (1) the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, in so far as it is applicable to the union territory of delhi, is hereby repealed. (2) notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said act pending, at the commencement of ..... 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 ..... instituted, was clearly a case under s. 33 of the act of 1952 which is as follows :- '33. (1) any civil court in the state of delhi or ajmer which has jurisdiction to hear and decide a suit for recovery of possession of any premises shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide any case under this act relating to .....
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
..... at a date prior to the beginning of the tenancy or the 2nd day of june, 1944, whichever is later;....(v) the 1947 act was replaced by the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952. section 13 of that act enumerated various grounds on which a tenant could be evicted. clause (c) of section 13(1) was as under ..... let for residential and non-residential purposes. the implicit restriction on the landlord's right to recover possession of the non-residential premises was introduced in the delhi and ajmer-marwara rent control act, 1947 and was continued under the 1958 act. however, the 1995 act does not make any distinction between the premises let for residential and ..... the landlord could not recover possession of the premises if he needed the same for commercial use. (iv) in 1947, the delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act was enacted and was made applicable to all the parts of delhi. section 2(b) of the 1947 act which contained the definition of the word 'premises' read as under:'premises' means .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1317; (1964)66PLR690
..... that a decision made therein is according to law and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit.'15. the true scope of section 35 of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 was considered by this court in hari shankar v. girdhari lal choudhury.; it appears that in that case the appeal court had interfered with at ..... not condone the default. on this view he dismissed the appeal.8. the tenant then approached the high court of punjab with a petition under section 35 of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952. one of the grounds taken before the high court was that the appellate court had ignored section 57 of the act of 1958. the high court ..... 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 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1969(2)LC280(SC)
..... high court was not sitting as a court of appeal but as a court of revision. the scope of the powers of the high court under sec 35 of the delhi & ajmer rent control act, 1952, was considered by this court in hari shankar v. rao girdhari lal chowdhury (1) where hidayatullah, j., as he then was speaking for the majority, observed:-- 'the ..... 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 .....
Tag this Judgment!