Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: delhi and ajmer rent control act 1952 repealed section 46 repeals and savings Page 7 of about 99 results (0.819 seconds)

Gurmej Singh and ors. Vs. the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1981P& H34

..... as the rent restriction act in punjab held as under :--- 'the fact that the landlord had in his notice demanded excessive amount asarrears of ..... protect him from ejectment when the part of the rent is not paid on the first hearing. 20. in parkesh nath vatsa v. uttam chand chadha, (1963) 65 pun lr 1116, h. r. khanna, j., the celebrated and renowned judge, who subsequently adorned the supreme court, held while discussing the scope of delhi and ajmer rent control act, which is couched in similar terms .....

Reethalammal Vs. K. Arumugham Pillai and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1978)1MLJ536

..... he would be liable to be evicted.18. in poorna chand v. motilal and ors. : air1964sc461 , the supreme court was concerned with the provisions of delhi and ajmer rent control act (xxxviiiof 1952) and in particular secticn 13(i) of the act, the material part of which reads as follows:notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained ..... for the respondent also relies on the decision in jagannath v. abdul azia and ors. : air1973delhi9 . there the learned judge of the delhi high court was considering a similar provision of delhi rent control act (lixof i958) and held that the consent may be express or implied, and either would be sufficient provided that it is in ..... be heard and disposed of by the subordinate judge (appellate authority), tirunelveli by an order dated 19th august, 1974. the appellate authority reversed the findings of the rent controller and dismissed the petition for eviction preferred by the petitioner. as against the said order, the present revision is filed.3. thiru t.r. mani, .....

Rajgor Shantilal Shivji Vs. the Trustees of Jivibai Alias Mongibai Wil ...

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1989Guj57; (1988)2GLR802

..... (2) & (3) of section 29 bombay rent act.. are considered by the supreme court and phrase 'according to law' is interpreted as having ..... in the district court under sub-see. (3) of section 29 bombay rent act is wider than the jurisdiction vested under section 115 civil procedure code. in harishankar v. rao girdharilal chowdhry : 1978(2)elt311(sc) the provisions of section 35 of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, which were in part materia with the provisions of sub-secs. ..... in the case of cucumber popatlal v. mahendra kumar parmananddas popat : (1975)16glr348 , while considering the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 29 bombay rent act, the learned judge sought the support from the observations of supreme court in phiroze bamajji desai v. chandrakant m. patel and then observed that the revisional .....

Prakash Chandra Vs. Bhajan Singh

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1997(3)WLC501; 1997(2)WLN15

..... point canvassed before me.33. in case of dr. gopal doss verma (supra) interpretation of section 13 (1) (e) and section 13 (1) (h) of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 came up for consideration before the apex court wherein in paragraph 9 it was ruled that it would be unreasonable to hold that the tenancy which was ..... years time for vacating the premises.43. in case of keshav kumar swamp (supra) the land lord filed an application under section 14(1)(e) of delhi rent control act, 1958 before rent controller seeking eviction of the tenant from the premises in question on the ground of bonafide requirement. the tenant (company) opposed the suit of eviction on the ..... .36. in case of s. kartar singh (supra) the apex court while interpreting old section 131(1) (h) corresponding to new section 14(1)(h) of delhi rent control act held that where the premises had been let out to the predecessor in interest of the tenants not for residential purpose alone but also for business or professional .....

Chandrakant Amratlal Parekh Vs. Adjudicating Officer,

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... would exclude merely procedural orders or orders which do not affect the rights of the parties. in bant singh gill v. shanti devi the provisions of section 34 of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 came up for consideration and the word 'order' used therein without any limitation was interpreted to exclude all interlocutory orders or other similar orders passed in .....

Dewan Daulat Ram Kapur Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1973Delhi363

..... patel gordhandas hargovindas's case (supra). (25) coming to the rent legislation in delhi, to begin with there was the new delhi house rent control order, 1939 followed by the delhi rent control ordinance, 1944; the delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act, 1947 and the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952. some of these applied only in the areas ..... for premises other than residential premises where they have been let out after june 2, 1944, on the basis of rents fixed under the delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act, 1947 or the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 with permitted increases. (e) section 6(l)(b)(2)(b) provides for premises other than residential ..... for residential premises let after june 2, 1944 and the basis is the rent fixed under the delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act, 1947 or the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, with permitted increases and, in any other case, the rent calculated on the basis of a specified percentage of the reasonable cost of .....

Krishan Gopal Malhotra Vs. Vijay Kumar

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1973Delhi265; 9(1973)DLT267

..... legal representatives in the executing court?(2) the landlord respondent vijay kumar field a suit against his tenant kidar nath malhotra for arrears of rent and eviction on february 18, 1955 under the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 (hereafter called the 1952 act). but the tenant died even before he was served wit htbe summons of the suit. ..... 1: though the eviction was claimed by the landlord under the 1952 act, most of the cases are, since the repeal of the said act. being heard under the delhi rent control act, 1958 (hereafter called the 1958 act). we have thought it useful, thereforee, to consider these questions in relation to the provisions of both these acts. (4 ..... to mean that the right to sue survives only to pursue a suit in a civil court. this was why in nathu khan v. mohd. ismail (1973) 1 delhi 298, a distinction was made between two different capacities of legal representatives of a deceased statutory tenant. in one capacity, any person who represents the estate of the .....

Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 31(1987)DLT369

..... june, 1944,- (a) in any case where the rent of such premises has been fixed under the delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act, 1947 or the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952- (i) if such rent per annum does not exceed twelve hundred rupees, the rent so fixed; or (ii) if such rent per annum exceeds twelve hundred rupees, the rent so fixed together with fifteen per cent, of ..... ,- (a) in any case where the rem of such premises has been fixed under the delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act, 1947, or the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952- '(i) if such rent per annum does not exceed twelve hundred rupees, the rent so fixed; or (ii) if such rent per annum exceeds twelve hundred rupees, the rent so fixed together with ten per cent of such .....

Ram Rakhamal Vs. Hari Ram and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1973Delhi555

..... june 12, 1958, the petitioner filed five suits for eviction of the respondents from the respective premises occupied by them in the said house on various grounds under the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952. four of the suits were decreed on april 28, 1959 but the fifth was dismissed. (3) however, in an appeal filed by the ..... in all these petitions is the landlord of house no. 2767/1937 situate in gali ahiran, malka ganj, delhi. the respondent in each of these petitions is occupying a portion of this house as a tenant under the petitioner. while delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, was in force, the slum areas (improvement and clearance) act. 1956, was passed. ..... the decision of s.k.. kapur j. in sinf. shakuntla and others v. pi. bhagwan dass and others reported in (1967 (69) punjab law reporter 130 (delhi section) was assailed by the respondents in these revision petitions, they were ordered to be placed before a division bench. the point of law is common to these revision petitions .....

Avinash Kaur Vs. Beli Ram

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1970Delhi651

..... the coming into force of the act of 1952, built some other premises. mahajan j., while dealing with clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 (act no. 38 of 1952) which was more or less similar to the clause with which we are concerned, observed that there was no warrant for holding ..... the division bench, is whether a tenant is liable to be ejected from any premises under clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (59 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the act) if he has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a residence before the commencement of the ..... a.o. no. 125 of 1967 would also govern the other case.(2) the premises in dispute, situated in golf links colony, new delhi, were let out to shrimati avinash kaur appellant for her residence on a monthly rent of rs. 1,400.00 on june 1, 1962. before that, on january 18, 1956 the appellant acquired vacant possession of a .....