Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001VAD(Delhi)43; 92(2001)DLT97
ORDERA. K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of possession in respect of Premises No. 9283 & 3089 (old) - N-1 And N-5/2 (New) in the property known a 'N' Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi (hereinafter to be called as 'suit property' for short).2. While the suit is pending adjudication, this is No.14256/92 has been filed by the plaintiff seeking direction to the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs for wrongful use and occupation of the premises in question with further direction to the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month as damages till the disposal of the suit. For determining the issue involved in this IA, it would be appropriate to have a glance at the pleadings.3. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property which was purchased by the plaintiff in an open auction dated 16th March, 1961 by the Ministry of Rehabilitation through Chief Settlement Commissioner, Department of Rehabilitation (Now Ministry of Home Affairs). T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi667
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This review application which purports to be made under section 114 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code has really to be treated as one made under Order Xlvii rule I Civil Procedure Code. For, section 151 has no application to this case. A review under section 151 is made to avoid the abuse of the process of the court and to correct some palpable error which the court committed by mistake. (Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab Air 1963 Sc 1909), (2) The only ground on which the application could be considered under Order Xlvii rule 1 Civil Procedure Code is whether the order dated 1st September 1972 which is sought to be reviewed disclosed 'error apparent on the face of the record' on 1st September 1972 when it was passed. (3) The present petitioners had contended before me in S.A.O. 178 of 1972 (Nathu Khan and others v. Mohd lsmail) that the order of eviction passed by the Controller under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the legal repre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi641
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) (ORAL).-THIS is a Revision under Section 25B, sub-section (8), of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, arising from an eviction petition brought under Section 14(1)(e) which, was tried under the new procedure. The Additional Rent Controller rejected the application for leave on the ground that it was belated. He then held that as there was no permission to defend the eviction petition, the provisions of Section 25B(4) had to apply and hence, eviction had to follow. There are two objections to the procedure adopted by the Additional ]Rent Controller. Firstly, it is submitted that the application for leave to defend was belated because the tenant was ill and hence, the application could not be filed within 15 days. It is submitted that the period could be extended. Regarding the other point, it is submitted that even if Section 25B(4) is applicable, still, the eviction order should not have been passed. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the fact that the sale-deed wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 46(1992)DLT191
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this petition are that Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, petitioner herein, filed an eviction petition against Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent. Control Act as amended by the Amend Act, 1988 for recovery of immediate possession of premises situated at plot No. 9 Block No. 159. 4, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. Summons under Iii Schedule of the Delhi Rent Control Act were issued and the respondent appeared and filed an application seeking leave to defend the petition Along with an affidavit of Shri Ramesh Chandra, Executive Director of the respondent company. The facts as alleged in the affidavit are that the petitioner is residing at 27, Akbar Road which is known as 9, Man Singh Road having an area of 5 acres on which a two-storeyed building has been constructed. There are 30 large size rooms in that bungalow besides servant quarters numbering about 20 and garages etc. and the petitioner has more than three rooms in her exclusive p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 24(1983)DLT355
M.L. Jain, J. (1) On 6-7-1962 an agreement of lease was reached between the respondent Smt. Girnari Devi and Gopal Dass, Dev Kumar and Chatur Bhuj Aggarwal (herein the Aggarwals) in respect of the disputed premises No. 20/1, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. One of the material conditions of this agreement was that the period of lease shall be ten years with effect from 15-7-1962. Another important term was that the Aggarwal were authorised to assign the demised premises for the use of any of the companies in which they or any of them is a director or for the use of any of the firms in which they or any of them is a partner. Out of them, Gopaldas and Dev Kumar arc since December 1959 two of the directors of M/s. Devi Dayal Metal Industries (Pvt) Ltd. (herein the appellants). The correspondence that ensued between the parties with regard to the payment of rent from 21-5-1963 onwards shows that rent was payable and was paid by the appellants. Chatur Bhuj Aggarwal has signed all these letters as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :16. 05.2019. Date of Decision :31. 05.2019 IN THE MATTER OF: + RC.REV. 72/2016 and CM APPL. 4199/2016 (Stay) RAJESHWAR DAYAL ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Mukul Kumar and Mr. P.D. Sharma, Advocates versus PREETI GUPTA ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ravish K. Goyal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.1. The present proceedings instituted under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act) assail the impugned order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the ACJ/CCJ/ARC, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in E-118/2013 whereby the application of the petitioner/tenant seeking leave to defend was dismissed and consequently an order of eviction of the petitioner/tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act was passed qua the tenanted premises i.e, shop on the ground floor of property bearing no.530, Chatta Hingamal, Chotta Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. R.C.Rev.72/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001IIAD(Delhi)810; 90(2001)DLT49; 2001(58)DRJ89
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7th March, 2000 passed by learned Trial Court in Suit No.239/93. By the impugned judgment and decree, learned Additional District Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein for possession of suit premises being Property bearing No.16, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi situated in Najafgarh Industrial Area. Further decree is passed in favor of respondent directing the defendant/appellant herein to pay mesne profit and damages at the rate of Rs.400/- per day from the date of termination of the license till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter at the rate of Rs.300/- per day. 2. Respondent is admittedly the owner of the suit property. license Deed dated 1st April, 1979 was executed between the parties which mentions that at the request of licensee (appellant), licensor (respondent) has agreed to grant the license to use some portion (specifically shown in the attached plan) for running ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2009Delhi1; 2008(106)DRJ365
Hima Kohli, J.1. By this order the Court proposes to dispose of an application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, whereunder the defendant has sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff cannot file any proceedings seeking to hold the suit property after expiry of the lease period i.e. after 31.12.2006 and that as the lease agreement is an unregistered document, and is hit by the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short `the Stamp Act'), the suit is barred by law.2. A brief reference to the facts of the case is necessary before dealing with the present application. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant praying inter alia for the following reliefs:(a) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men or agents, and all other persons acting on its behalf from preventing and/ or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment and possession of the suit schedule property situated at Plo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :28th May, 2018 Date of Decision:1. t June, 2018 + RFA2492017 SANJAY KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ghanshyam Thakur, Advocate (M:85868. 6803). RAJESH KUMAR versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ravi Bassi and Mr. Sanyam Malik, Advocates (M:98100. 1293). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.JUDGMENT1 Smt. Laxmi Devi was the owner of property bearing Nos. Y-316 and Y-317 which is a land measuring 50 sq. yds. (25 sq. yds. each) situated in J.J.Colony, Camp No.1, Nangloi, Delhi-110041 (hereinafter, suit property).2. The Respondent/Plaintiff - Mr. Rajesh Kumar (hereinafter, Plaintiff) and the Appellant/Defendant - Mr. Sanjay Kumar (hereinafter, Defendant) are the sons of Smt. Laxmi Devi. A mutual agreement was duly signed by her by which she fixed the share amongst her three sons i.e. the Plaintiff, the Defendant and the Sh. Ajay Kumar. The manner in which the division was made by her is contained in the said mutu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003IIIAD(Delhi)634; 105(2003)DLT98; 2003(69)DRJ628
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A sub-lease deed was executed in respect of plot No. E-5/8, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in favor of Smt. Kalan on 19.07.1972. The property was sold on a Power of Attorney basis to the petitioner herein on 28.04.1978, though the nature of transaction was of an agreement for construction along with a General Power of Attorney and Will with a provision that on the failure of the perpetual sub-lease deed to pay the amount in terms of the construction agreement, the property would vest with the petitioner. The agreement to sell was entered into on 20.12.1980 for an amount of Rs. 5.50 lacs and Smt. Kalan applied to the respondent for permission to sell the property to the petitioner in 1980. 2. The petitioner let out the property to one Shri Balbir Singh on 23.01.1981, who started running a guest house in a portion of the property in question. In the meantime on 18.08.1981, the respondent replied to Smt. Kalan in pursuance to her request for permission to transfer statin...
Tag this Judgment!