Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: delhi rent control act 1958 repealed schedule iii the third schedule Page 7 of about 2,135 results (0.100 seconds)

Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Association Vs. Aditya Prata ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2001(6)ALD582; 2001(6)ALT433

..... and that would be 'clearly a fraud on the constitutional provision'.61. in pankaj bhargava's case (supra), the permission of the rent controller under section 21 of the delhi rent control act; which enables the landlord to let out the premises to a tenant, was held by the high court as marred by fraudulent suppression ..... consequences of fraud as vitiating the permission under section 21....62. in shrisht dhawan's case (supra), the question was whether permission under section 21 of delhi rent control act applied by the landlady was vitiated by fraud and mis-representation. in the main judgment, sahai, j, referred to derry's case (supra), and ..... . therefore, under section 11, the result of obtaining a false and fraudulent community certificate and securing admission and/or employment/appointment in any government or government controlled company would be (i) discharge from service forthwith, (ii) recovery of the amount paid by the government by way of scholarship or financial benefit, (iii .....

institute of Education Vs. Sowcar A. Siddanna Endowment and K.H. Ramai ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [2003]126TAXMAN181(Kar)

..... one of the trustee members late sowcar chennaiah on behalf of the trust either by leasing the property in favour of third defendant or fair rent got fixed from rent controller under the repealed provisions of the karnataka rent control act, 1961. the said action of the trustee member cannot be construed that he re-divested the trust property merely because he has managed the property ..... judgments of this court in a.p.m.c v. siddeshwara industries ilr 1987 karnataka 1989 and shivalingaiah v. anananda social & educational trust 1985 (2) klj 206 judgment of the delhi high court in duli chand v. mahabir pershad trilok charitable trust air 1984 del 145 and the judgment of gujarat high court and allahabad high court with regard to non .....

Yashdeep Trexim Vs. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ...

Court : Kolkata Appellate

..... reported in air 2009 sc 523 [where it was held that interpretation placed by the high court on the word psus in section 3(1)(b) of the maharashtra rent control act, 1999 amounts to judicial legislation and further it defeats the very object of section 3(1)(b)]. 18. countering the argument of the respective writ petitioners that since ..... 2 scc 213 was relied on to contend that definition is only a guide. on purposive interpretation of a statute, the decisions reported in saibaba (supra), and of the delhi high court in telesound india ltd., in re. reported in vol. 53 company cases 940 were relied on. for functional and purposive approach, the decision in directorate of ..... directed that although the company was incorporated in india, with its head office there, but the company had been registered in india u/s 591(2) of indian companies, delhi..5. several other directions were passed and hearing was adjourned till november 4, 2009. 6. on the adjourned date i.e. november 4, 2009, the bifr after .....

Dwarke Prasad Vs. Kishan Lal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1986All174

..... premises but for 23 rooms only. a common question of law also arose as to the validity of the deposits in view of the relevant provisions of the rent control act. these are the distinct facts on which the plaintiffs' multifariousness was overruled in that case. but the factual situation in the present being as it is, ..... defendant 2 resisted the plaintiffs' ingress to and egress from the premises in suit. in 1960, the defendant 1 started depositing the rent payable in respect of the aforesaid 23 rooms with the rent controller but in making these deposits the defendant 1 described herself to be the tenant of the entire premises. the plaintiffs' further allegation ..... kanhaiylal deceased; they have been impleaded in capacity as co-sharers in the building against whom the relief sought is partition, apart from recovery of the impugned rent etcetera, which they may have realised from the tenants of the one-third portion and mesne profits et cetera.ii. defendants second set represent the branch of .....

M.R.F. Employees Union Through Its President V. Prakash Vs. the Manage ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2003)ILLJ881Mad

..... law and order problem. there can be no comparison (analogy illustrated by mr.somayaji) with violation of the provisions of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act as between landlord and his tenant which is purely in the field of private-law. even in the context of the industrial disputes ..... state which was commissioned in the year 1998. the manufacture of radial tyres and components thereof is a highly technical and complicated one and involving automatic machinery with controls by logistic progress. the respondent has therefore, invested rs.130 crores and requires further investment of rs.70 crores. the unit would be functioning with high perfection, ..... national seeds corporation employees union v. national seeds corporation, (1973 (1) l.l.j., 254) a division bench of the delhi high court held that for an alleged non-compliance of section 9a of the act, it may entitle an employee to raise an industrial dispute, but will not entitle a claim for mandamus. 21. in gattaiah,v .....

Smt. Jamna Devi and ors. Vs. Kude Ram and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1982SC1456; 1982(1)SCALE815; (1982)3SCC376; 1982(14)LC850(SC)

..... order1. petition for special leave is granted.2. this is a case under the delhi rent control act wherein the land-lord approached the court seeking possession of the premises occupied by tenant on the ground that the landlord requires the premises bonafide for his own use and ..... giant leave to the tenant to contest the eviction petition. he must file his written statement within 2 weeks from today. the parties must appear before the learned 5th addl. rent controller, delhi on 15th september, 1982. as the landlord seeks possession of the premises on the ground of personal requirement, the matter be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. we hope that ..... at the instance of the tenant, the appellant before us, which was dismissed in limine. hence this appeal by special leave.4. section 25b(5) enjoins a duty on the rent controller to grant leave to contest the petition, if the facts disclosed in the affidavit of the tenant are such as would disentitle the landlord to obtain an order of eviction .....

Suhas H Pophale Vs. Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd.and anr

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... occupation . it is, however, material to note that in that case the premises were owned by lic from 19.7.1958, i.e. prior to the delhi rent control act becoming applicable from 9.2.1959. besides, the issue of protection under a welfare legislation being available to the tenant prior to the premises becoming public premises, and ..... (1980) 4 scc435was relied upon by mr. raval. in this matter also a plea was raised on behalf of the appellant tenant for being covered under the delhi rent control act, 1958 which came to be repelled. mr. raval stressed upon the observations in para 5 of the judgment to the effect that section 2(g) merely requires ..... has been determined in accordance with law. 18. thereafter, the court dealt with the issue of conflict between the two enactments and whether the public premises act, would override the delhi rent control act. as this court noted in paragraph 49 of the said judgment, both these statutes have been enacted by the same legislature, i.e. parliament, in .....

Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. Classic Credit Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... contended, that the civil court alone, had the jurisdiction to entertain the claim raised by the landlord, and that, the eviction petition filed under the provisions of the delhi rent control act, was no longer maintainable.31. while adjudicating the aforesaid dispute, this court held as under: (ambalal case, scc pp. 409-10 & 415, paras 24-27 ..... the above-cited judgment, the respondent landlord had filed an eviction petition on 13-9-1985 against the appellant, under section 14(1)(b) of the delhi rent control act. when the above petition was pending, section 3( c ) was brought in through an amendment with effect from 1-12-1988. by the above amendment, ..... the full bench was also distinguishable since that was a case where the eviction proceedings before the court of munsif under the karnataka rent control act, 1961 had concluded when the karnataka rent control (amendment) act, 1994 came into force. by that amendment, the court of munsif was deprived of jurisdiction in such cases. this court held .....

D Sharanappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... chapter iv, chapter v deals with finance, accounts and audit. chapter vi deals with application of the karnataka public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1974 and non- application of the karnataka rent control act, 1961, to board premises. chapter vii deals with acquisition and disposal of land. the provisions of chapter vii apply to such areas from such ..... chooses, shall, in this game of snakes and ladders, start all over again. (underlining by me) 33 26. further, in the case of government (nct of delhi) vs. manav dharam trust and another [(2017) 6 scc751, (manav dharam trust) referring to sukhbir singh, it has been observed as under: 24. the 2013 ..... 25. the said section has been interpreted by the hon ble supreme court in the case of delhi development authority vs. sukhbir singh and others [(2016) 16 scc258 (sukbhir singh). in said case the acquisition was under the provisions of la act, 1894 and not under any other central or state enactment. further, it has been held .....

Ganesan Rep by Its Power Agent G. Rukmani Ganesan Vs. The Commissioner ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... exercise of its power under section 18(1) has issued a notification conferring on district judges the powers of appellate authority for the purpose of kerala rent act. the said notification reads as under: buildings (lease & rent control) act, 1965 noti. under section 18(1) conferring on district judges powers of appellate authorities (published in kerala gazette no.38 dated 26th september, 1989 : sro : ..... vs. cheppilat puthanpurayil aboobacker, (1995) 5 scc5 in the above case, question for consideration was as to whether the appellate authority under section 18 of kerala buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1965 has power to condone the delay in filing appeal. the issue which has been noticed in paragraph 1 is to the following effect: 1. in this appeal by special ..... without prejudice to any other remedy open to the respondent no.3 in law.66. the parties shall bear their own costs. ( ashok bhushan ) ......................j.( k.m. joseph ) new delhi, may 03, 2019 ......................j. .....