Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1971RLR81
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of similar Writ Petitions Nos. 80,133 to 137 and 176 of 1971. It will be sufficient to set out the facts in C.Ws 79 & 80 of 1971. The only point of distinction between C.Ws 79 & 80 of 1971 and the rest is that in C.Ws 79 & 80 alone there is the additional fact of a notice having been issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 6-1-1971 under section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act asking the persons concerned to show cause why the rateable value should not be enhanced as stated in that notice for 1970-71. Even before the expiry of the dates mentioned in the said notices for showing cause the writ Petitions 79 & 80/71 were filed on 18-1-1971. The rest were filed some time later. (2) The petitioner in C.W. 79/71 is the owner of building bearing Municipal No. 35 Faiz Bazar, Delhi and the petitioner in C.W. 80/71 is a joint owner of building bearing Municipal No. 36 Faiz Bazar, Delhi. Both the buildings. Numbers 35 and 36, wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT539
S.K. Kapur, J.(1) The question in this appeal turns mainly on the interpretation of section 12 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant filed a petition for the fixation of standard rent of the premises in question. The premises were let out to the tenant on 2nd March, 1963, and the petition was filed on 19th July, 1966, that is, after the expiry of more than two years from the date of letting. The landlord objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that it had been beyond the time prescribed by section 12 of the said Act. The tenant then made an application for condensation of delay under the proviso to section 12. Two grounds were set up in the said application- (1) The tenant met with an accident on 31-8-1964 and he was advised complete physical and mental rest for two years : and (2) he was under a bona fide impression that application for the fixation of standard rent could be filed within two years after the completion of five years from the date of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 18(1980)DLT36
Harish Chandra, J.1. The petitioner is a landlord who filed an eviction petition against the respondents on 7th April, 1979 on the ground covered by clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The need was based on the forthcoming retirement of the petitioner on 31st August, 1980. The respondents applied for leave and by an order dated 13th September, 1979 were granted leave to contest, on all grounds except those set out in paras 5 and 13 of the application for leave to contest.2. One of the grounds on which the leave to contest was granted was the plea that the eviction petition was premature having been filed without a present cause of action as the date of retirement giving rise to the need of the premises was 31st August, 1980, more than one year after the filing of the petition.3. After the grant of leave to contest, on this among grounds, the learned Rent Controller proceeded to consider the ground of prematurely of the eviction application, there and then and by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 37(1989)DLT278
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The appellant herein was defendant in the suit, (S N. 108/80), instituted by the respondent in respect to a plot of land bearing No. E-2, Bali Nagar, New Delhi, which was alleged to have been let out to him under an agreement dated 22nd May, 1971 initially for a period of 11 months and extended from time to lime up to 22nd February, 1976. The suit was for recovery of possession on the plea that the tenancy of the defendant (appellant herein), had come to an end by efflux of time, having not been renewed after 22nd of February, 1976 but nevertheless as a measure of abundant caution, the plaintiff also served a notice of termination of tenancy on the defendant with effect from 22nd March, 1977, by means of notice dated 28th February, 1977. duly served upon him, and that since the defendant.had refused to surrender possession despite this notice, the suit was necessitated. (2) The suit was contested on a number of pleas, including denial of status of the plaintiff a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 34(1988)DLT395
D.P. Watihwa, J. (1) The appellant Was defendant in the suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits filed by the respondents/plaintiffs who are two in number. (2) The suit was filed on 14.9.1972. The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Ram Sarup-husband of the defendant was tenant in respect of one room and a Kotha in house bearing No. 4820, Phatak Namak, Hauz Qazi,Delhi,at a monthly rent of Rs. 18.00 . Tenancy of Mr. Ram Sarup was stated to have been terminated with effect from 31.1.1969. Since, as alleged, he did not surrender the tenancy he was merely a statutory tenant. It is stated that some time in January, 1971, Mr. Ram Sarup surrendered possession of the Kotha and promised to surrender possession of the room as well. But he died on 9.11.. 1971 leaving behind the defendant as his widow. The plaintiffs, thereforee, filed the present suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the defendant. The defendant denied that she a was statutory tenant and stated that earlier t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi156
1. A tenant is protected in varying degrees from eviction by three principal enactments, namely, (1) the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, (2) The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and (3) the Delhi rent Control Act, 1958 and similar legislation in other States. The question before us is whether these Acts can b construed harmoniously so that all of them can apply to a given situation or whether any of them is repugnant to the other and is repealed by implication to the extent of the repugnancy.2. The appellant is the purchaser of a house in Azadpur, Delhi, from the compensation pool under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. By virtue of the sale certificate he obtained title to the house with effect from 22-2-1964. The respondent was in occupation of the house from before the purchase and was thus entitled to the benefit of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 which absolu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
CM(M) 1394/2011 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the concurrent judgment of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 1st July, 2008 and Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 18th November, 2011 by which the eviction petition filed by the respondent on the ground of sub-letting has been allowed in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. Shop No.106, First Floor, Mansarovar Building, 90, Nehru Place, New Delhi. 2. The respondents filed an eviction petition against the petitioner seeking eviction on the grounds of sub-letting under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. The eviction petition after trial was decreed in terms of the judgment by the learned ARC. The appeal preferred against the said judgment before the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal also failed. 3. Challenge by the petitioner to the impugned orders are interalia on following grounds:- (i) The petitioner N.K.Jain had taken the suit premises on rent vide l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)551; 62(1996)DLT451; 1996(37)DRJ548
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 15, 1993 passed by Shri K.S.Gupta, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which inter-alia upheld the order passed by Shri P.D.Gupta, Additional Rent Controller striking out the defense of the appellant under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for not making payment/deposit in compliance with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act.(2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Filed petition for eviction on the ground of non payment of rent which was being contested by the appellant. On April 1, 1991 respondent filed an application on the allegations that an order under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed against the appellant on 2nd November, 1989 for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.250.00 per month with effect from March 1, 1987. On the application filed for withdrawal of rent it was reported that the appellant deposited only a sum of Rs.8250.00 by way...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1980Delhi142; 17(1980)DLT234; 1980(1)DRJ11
H.L. Anand, J.1. This is a tenant's petition under proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 assailing the order of eviction. The principal question that it raised was as to the liability of the tenant to eviction merely on the ground that the premises at present available to owners, though otherwise sufficient for their requirements having regard to the extent of the accommodation and of the family, was nevertheless insufficient, because on account of strained relations between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, a separate unit in the premises could not be provided for a branch of the family. Certain subsequent event have to an extent changed the context in which the order was made and have thrown up an additional problem as to their effect and the course to be followed in the changed circumstances.2. The property, in which the premises in dispute is situated is jointly owned by the mother, principal of a government school and her two sons ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:04. 10.2018 Pronounced on:07. 01.2019 versus SHOBHA AGGARWAL & ORS. UOI & ANR. + W.P.(C) 516/2010 & CM APPL. 26668/2018 + W.P.(C) 7489/2012 + W.P.(C) 4951/2014 HARSH KUMAR AGARWAL UNION OF INDIA AND ORS MAHENDER YADAV UOI & ANR versus versus ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS + W.P.(C) 917/2018 CHAUDHARY KISHAN CHAND & SONS (HUF)........ Petitioner UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS versus + CS(OS) 3518/2012, I.A. 3927/2013 & 15957/2013 RAGHUBIR SARAN CHARITABLE TRUST RAYMOND LTD & ANR versus ..... Plaintiff ..... Defendants Through:... Petitioner No.1 in person in W.P.(C) 516/2010 with Sh. Pranav Jain, Advocate, for... Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) 516/2010. Ms. Shalini Kapoor, Ms. Rhea. G. Munjal, Ms. Bindita Chaturvedi and Sh. Dikshant Khanna, Advocates, for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4951/2014. Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj with Ms. Ananya Mukh...
Tag this Judgment!