Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1971Delhi164
1. Bhola Singh, the father of Ram Singh and Amar Singh appellants Nos. 1 and 2, was a tenant in house NO. 1313 Ward No. Viii, situated in Kucha Hiralal, Gali Kundewalan, Ajmere Gate, Delhi, on a rent of Rs. 67 per month, together with Rs. 6/7/- as house tax and Rs. 3/- as water tax, totalling Rs. 76/7/- per month. This house originally belonged to one Hira Lal, after whose death his son Khushawaqat Rai, respondent No. 1 claimed to be its owner. Bhola Singh appears to have started paying rent to Khnushwaqat Rai, to whom he paid all rents up to August 31, 1958. No rent was paid to him with effect from 1st September, 1958 to 30th June, 1959. Khushwaqat Rai respondent No. 1 had served on Bhola Singh, a notice of demand dated April 21, 1959 but there was no response. On July 22, 1959 respondent No. 1 filed a petition of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from September 6, 1958 to July 6, 1959. The tenant, Bhol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~15 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:18. h January, 2018 CM(M) 391/2016 NIRMAL DEVI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. J.C. Mahindro, Advocate versus POONAM & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Respondent no.1 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner admittedly is the landlady qua the respondents in respect of the demised premises described as property bearing no.L- 26/8, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110 092. It appears the premises were let out initially in the name of Mr. Kamal Kumar at the agreed monthly rent of Rs.400/-. Mr. Kamal Kumar having died on 15.02.2005, the respondents have stepped into his shoes and have become the tenants under the petitioner.2. The petitioner issued a legal notice on 07.08.2007, through counsel, demanding payment of arrears of rent, inter alia, stating that by virtue of the discretion vested in him under Section 6A of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, he was entitled to increase the rent. He also alleged that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1981RLR164
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The appellants were the tenant of the respondent in the disputed premises situated at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. One of the terms of the lease dt. 17.9.53, was as follows : 'THATthe lessee shall not be entitled to sublet or part with possession of the premises without the written permission of the landlady provided that the lessee shall have the right to allow the use of the premises to their sister or associate concern, the liability of the lessee to pay to the landlady covenated rent thereforee remaining absolute.' (2) The respondent landlady on 9.3 1972, filed an eviction petition on the ground that the tenant had sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the tenanted premises to M/s Associated Traders and Engineers(P) Ltd., without her written consent. The case of the tenant was that M/s. Associated Traders and Engineers(P) Ltd., were their associate or a sister concern and they were using the premises with express written permission of the landlady ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 81(1999)DLT275; 1999(50)DRJ854
Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal allowing the appeal of the respondent under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. Originally, the petition was filed under Section14(1)(b), (c), (h) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. That petition was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller on 23rd April, 1994. The eviction petition was filed somewhere in 1983 by the respondent against the present appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal limiting their prayer only under Clause (h) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Mr. Warrier, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the premises were being used for commercial purposes right from the inception of the tenancy and, thereforee, no order could have been passed under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In support of his contention he has cited Dr. G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 154(2008)DLT211; 2008(106)DRJ705
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd November, 2007 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby an application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.2. The brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent filed an Eviction Petition alleging that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of premises at Rs. 500/- per month including water and electricity charges. This tenancy was from month-to-month. The petitioner stopped paying rent to the respondent from January, 1989. The respondent then sent a legal notice dated 17.10.2000 claiming arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy of the petitioner.3. This notice was duly replied by the petitioner vide reply dated 9th November, 2006 wherein petitioner denied the title of the respondent over the suit property and set up a title in himself and his wife. After this denial of title by the petitioner herein, the respondent filed a suit for possession of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: August 30, 2013 + RC. Rev. No.26/2013 FEROZE ENTERPRISES Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Mohammad Abid, Adv. with Mr.Shariq Mohammad, Adv. versus MOHD. IQBAL & ANR Through + ..... Respondents Mr.Amit Gupta, Adv. with Ms.Sumati Jumrani, Adv. RC. Rev. No.27/2013 FEROZE AHMED Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Mohammad Abid, Adv. with Mr.Shariq Mohammad, Adv. versus MOHD. IQBAL & ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr.Amit Gupta, Adv. with Ms.Sumati Jumrani, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The abovementioned two petitions are filed by the petitioners under section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the eviction orders dated 12th September, 2012 passed by the learned Addl. Rent Controller (Central), Delhi, dismissing the leave to defend applications of the petitioners. As the facts in both the matters are common, both the petitions are decided by the common order.2. The respondents filed evic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT590
Hardyal Hardy, J. (1) This second appeal has been filed by a tenant whose eviction has been ordered from a small loom described as a servant quarter and an open court-yard in a (2) The respondents had purchased bungalow No. 49 on Hanuman Road, New Delhi in 1958. At the time of purchase ey gto vacant possession of the entire bungalow except a small room described as a servant quarter and an open Court-yard which was in occupation of the appellant who claimed to have been in possession of the said portion of the property for the last 30 to 35 years, as according to him his father was an employee of the previous owner. The respondents who were Joint owners of the said bungalow with their father (since deceased) started living in the bungalow immediately after it was purchased by them. On the evidence that has been accepted by buth the Courts below, the respondents' family consisted of 18 or 19 members. Although the bungalow appears to be a fairly commodious one, the respondents sought evi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT412
(1) This second appeal from order under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 8-5-1968 allowing Smt. Gulab Devi's appeal from the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 13-12-1966 dismissing her ejectment applications.(2) Two ejectment applications had been filed by Smt. Gulab Devi against Smt. D. P. Sinha and her children as legal representatives of the deceased tenant Shri D. P. Sinha and against Shri Ram Lal. The plea in ejectment application No. 1018 of 1964 was based on the averments that the premises had been sublet, assigned or that the premises were otherwise parted with to another person without obtaining the consent of the owner in writing. The premises were alleged to have been let out for residential purposes and required bonafide by the petitioner-landlady who was the owner and also as residence for herself and for other members of her family upon whom she depended. Her son Arjan Saxena, acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi236
ORDER1. The petitioner (landlady) had filed a petition to evict the late Chetan Dass on the ground of personal necessity and non-payment of rent in April, 1965. The application was dismissed on 15-3-1966, but the landlady had filed an appeal. During the pendency of that appeal Chetan Das died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The appeal was accepted on 9-3-1967 and eviction was ordered on the ground of personal necessity. The second appeal preferred to this Court was dismissed on 10-3-1970 two months time having been granted for vacating the property.2. An application was presented to the Competent Authority under the slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 on 5-5-1970. The same was dismissed on 12-3-1971 on the ground that the respondents could not get alternative accommodation. An appeal which was preferred to the Financial Commissioner by the landlady was also dismissed on 17-5-1971.3. Though a number of points were taken in the petition the main argumen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 40(1990)DLT82; 1990RLR95
R.N. Pyne, J. (1) This Regular First Appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant Sfari Mahavir Prashad against the decree passed by the Additional District Judge dated 10th July, 1986 in Suit No. 224 of 1984 filed by this plaintiffs/respondents herein. The said decree was passed in favor of the plaintiffs/respondents for possession of the portion comprising of two rooms, one kitchen and common latrine and bath room on the ground floor of the property bearing No. 4759, Deputy Gaoj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, and for damages for use and occupation with effect from 1st April, 1983 to 31st July, 1984 @ Rs.50U.00 per month as also for further damages at the same rate from 1st August, 1984 till recovery of possession. (2) In the plaint it is stated by the plaintiffs that they are the owners of property No. 4759. Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, which was construct- ed on plot No 5. It is further slated that they purchased the property by virtue of different registered sale deeds from its previ...
Tag this Judgment!