Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA (OS) NO. 118/2011 & CM No. 6572/2012 Reserved on:18. h December, 2012 Date of Decision:31. t January, 2013 % FAB INDIA OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Ajay Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.K. Mehta, Mr. Virender Mehta, Mr. Kunal Mehta and Mr. Gautam Mehta, Advocates. Versus S.N. SHEOPORI ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr. Sanjiv Sindhwani, Mr. Sahil Bhalaik and Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG SANJIV KHANNA, J: This judgment disposes of the first appeal filed by Fab India Overseas Private Limited and the cross-objections filed by Janak Mushran against the judgment and decree dated 4th July, 2011 passed by the single Judge in CS(OS) No. 246/2009 titled S.N. Sheopori and Janak Mushran v. Fab India Overseas Private Limited.2. Before dwelling into the disputed questions, we deem it appropriate to state the undis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~1 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: December 02, 2016 RSA3462016 GYAN CHAND ..... Appellant Through: Mr.N.K.Aggarwal & Ms.Nupur Sachdeva, Advocates with appellant in person versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate with Mr.Ankush Sharma & Mr.Gaurav Dhakar, Advocates KAMLESH CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT (Oral) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the concurrent judgment of the Courts below i.e. of the First Appellate Court dated 16th September, 2016 and of the trial Court dated 11th December, 2014 whereby the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the possession has been decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.2. After the notice of the appeal was sent to the Respondent, LCR was also requisitioned.3. At the stage of hearing, the thrust of argument on behalf of the appellant was that instead of passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of admission ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1994Delhi112; 51(1993)DLT334; 1993(27)DRJ144
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners mainly seek the following reliefs:- 1.Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD' for short) under section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'DMC Act') and those issued by the New Delhi Municipal Committee ('NDMC' for short) under section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act ('PM Act' for short) as extended to Delhi, on the properties situated within their respective areas; 2.A writ in the nature of direction or order declaring that the words 'be precluded from objecting to any assessment made by the Commissioner in respect of such land or building of which he is the owner or occupier' appearinginsub-section(3)ofsection 131 of the Dmc Act are unconstitutional, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice; and 3.A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the municipal authorities (MCD and NDMC) to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(105)DRJ358
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The appellant, which is a private limited company, is the owner and landlord of property bearing No. 54, Janpath, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The respondent herein, namely, Bank of India, was inducted as a tenant initially on 21.4.1962 in respect of the basement and ground floor of the suit property. Further portions of the property were also let out to the respondent in stages. Particulars of all the leases and the portions let out thereby are as under:S. No. Particulars Terms of Lease Portions let outof Lease1. Lease deed 25 years with effect 3100 sq.ft on the ground dated 21.4.62 from 12.5.1961 with a floor and 3100 sq.ft inclause for renewal the basement @ Rs.3,833/- p.m.2. Lease deed 10 years with effect 1200 sq.ft. on the back portiondated 9.5.68 from 18.4.1966 of the first floor @ Rs.2,700/- p.m.3. Oral Lease W.e.f. 20.2.1970 Front portion of the first floor@ Rs.2,700/- p.m.4. Oral Lease - 500 sq.ft. on the first floor@ Rs.1,125/-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 63(1996)DLT577
C.M. Nayafr, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of three appeals S.A.O- Nos. 202181, 212181 and 13190 as they raise common questions of law The first two appeals arise out of judgment dated September 17, 1979 of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, and judgment dated May 7, 1981 passed by Rent Control Tribunal. (2) The respondent filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on August 21, 1978 for eviction of the appellants from one big room, two small rooms, verandah, part of open terrace in front etc. forming part of the tenancy premises on second floor, plot No. 27, House No. 4779, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The allegations were made that Kishori Lal, since deceased, was tenant under the respondent in respect of the above said premises since July 18, 1953 at rental of Rs. 771- per month, but has neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent within two months from service of notice dated December 18, 1977. The petition f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1988Delhi103
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) In this suit the plaintiffs seek the following reliefs against the defendants in respect of the itemises in dispute comprising the first floor premises of* the house known as 99-Anand Lok, New Delhi and the second floor in the annexe premises and the car parking space on the ground floor, therein :(a) restraining defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs their employees representatives, and/or causing obstruction in any manner whatsoever, from going to and using the 1st floor premises and the Car Park space at ground floor, of the house known as 99, Anand Lok, New Delhi. (B)restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs, in respect of the premises, given to plaintiff No. 1 on rent, in house No. 99, Anand Lok, New Delhi. (C)to pass a decree in the sum) of Rs. 1,04,000 as compensation for damages caused to the plaintiff. (D)a decree for further damages at the rate of Rs. 3100 per month and Rs. 500 per day from 5-5-1982 till the date th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1989Delhi173; 1989RLR186
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The appellant herein was defendant in the suit (S. No. 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 tims up to 22nd February, 1976. The suit was for recovery of possession on the plea that she tenancy of the defendant (appellant herein), had come to an end by efflux of time, having nut 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 : 1995IAD(Delhi)239; AIR1995Delhi154; 1995(32)DRJ41
Swatanter Kumar, J.(1) The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. l,10,000.00 with costs and future interest. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the Principal of Government Senior School, and, at the time of institution of the suit, was working in Government Co-educational Senior Secondary School, Issapur, Delhi. The plaintiff, along with one Ishwar Dass Mahajan, had taken on rent the premises bearing No. F-122, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs. 350.00 exclusive of electric and water chargers vide lease deed dated 27th May, 1964 from the defendant.' The lease deed dated 27th May, 1964 provided the terms and conditions which were to govern the relationship of the landlord and the tenant. Clause (f) of the lease deed reads as under :- 'NOT to use the said premises or any part thereof for any purpose other than for residence or for school but in case of opening any school, not to take any third person or other person(s) as partner(s) a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 121(2005)DLT65
A.K. Sikri, J.1. CA No. 1168/2002 is filed by the three applicants who claim that they are the owners of the property bearing Municipal No. 16, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the demised property'). Smt. Ram Pyari Sethi, their mother and predecessor-in-interest of this property, had granted lease of this property to Bharat Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. (now in liquidation) (hereinafter called as 'the company') vide written deed dated 11th June, 1965. The property was meant for personal office of the Managing Director Mr. Raunaq Singh and a guest house. The tenancy commenced from 1st April, 1964 for a period of five years ending on 31st March, 1969. Rent of the demised premises was fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The demised premises were, however, not vacated by the company after the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy.2. Some time in the year 1990, the company became sick and consequently it made reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : January 08, 2015 Judgment Delivered on : February 02, 2015 + RFA (OS) 55/2014 DELUXE DENTELLES PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Appellants Represented by: Mr.C.A.Sundram, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms.Divvya Kesaar and Mr.Mannmohit K.Puri, Advocates versus SMT. ISHPINDER KOCHHAR .....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Sumit Bansal, Advocate with Mr.Ateev Mathur and Ms.Jagriti Ahuja, Advocates FAO (OS) 117/2014 DELUXE DENTELLES PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Appellants Represented by: Mr.C.A.Sundram, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms.Divya Kesar and Mr.Manmohit K.Puri, Advocates versus SMT. ISHPINDER KOCHHAR .....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Sumit Bansal, Advocate with Mr.Ateev Mathur and Ms.Jagriti Ahuja, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff before the learned Single Judge. We shall be referring to the parti...
Tag this Judgment!