Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-13-1971
Reported in : 1971RLR81
..... considered the provisions of the delhi rent control act, 1958 simplicities relating to the fixation of standard rent in manmohan chawla v. jaswant singh. his lordship pointed outthat the standard rent could be fixed only on an application made to the controller and that too within the period of limitation as provided by section 12 of the act. this decision was affirmed by the suprem court in m. m. chawla v. sethi 1969 rent control journal 130. the scheme of the act was stated to be entirely inconsistent with standard rent being determined otherwise than by order of the controller. the prohibition against recovery of rent in excess of the standard rent is said to apply only from the date on which the standard rent is determined by order of the controller and not before that. the ..... cases where the letting is subsequent to the act, within two years from the date of the letting. the controller could entertain an application even after the period of two years if he is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application in time. section 13 provides for refund of rent, premium etc. not recoverable under the act, that is to say, in cases where any sum has been paid, whether before or after the commencement of the act, in contravention of any of the provisions of the rent act, 1958 or even the earlier delhi & ajmer rent control act of 1952, which the rent act of 1958 had repealed under section 57. an application for such refund, however, could .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-25-1971
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harmoniously so that all of them can apply to a given situation or whether any of them is repugnant to the other and is repealed by implication to the extent of the repugnancy.2.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
Decided on : Sep-13-1971
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
Decided on : Aug-09-1971
Reported in : 8(1972)DLT123
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This second appeal from order has been filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act real with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the tenant against the appellate order of the Control Tribunal dated December 3, 1970bywhich he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Rent Controller dated June 10, 1970 dismissing the objections of the tenant against execution of the order for eviction which had been passed against him. (2) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant before me is the tenant while the respondent is the landlord and owner of the premises in dispute. On September 24, 1966 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (i) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). In paragraph 18 of the petition, the landlord had specified the ingredients of clause (e) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-17-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi202; ILR1972Delhi122
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) After the dis(2) The right of appeal is a substantive one and has to be given by some statute expressly or by necessary implication. We have to find out, thereforee, the particular provision of law which gives the Union of India the right of appeal. Section 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure enacts that 'in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law'. Provisions of the Letters Patent of the High Courts have been held to be such 'special law'. For instance, clause 36 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Bombay was held to be applicable in preferences to section 98 of the Code to govern an appeal from the original side of the High Court to a third Judge where two Judges had differed. (Bhahidas v. Pai Gulab 1921) 481. A. 1810. Under sub-section (1) of .section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 'where a single Judge of the High Court of Delhi exercises ordinary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-17-1971
Reported in : 1972RLR66
M.R.A. Ansari (1) Petitioner owns certain property in Daryagani, Delhi which is let out to tenants. For 1959-60, its rateable value was Rs. 14,500.00. For 1960-61, value was assessed at Rs. 26,061.00. Petitioner appealed against it U/S 169 but the same as dismissed. He moved High Court where it was held that although the standard rent of the property had been fixed under the Rent Control Act of 1947, it was the standard rent fixed under the Act of 1952 or of 1958 which would govern the proviso to S. 116(1) about the rateable valuation. After discussing Supreme Court decisions in Corp. of Calcutta Vs . Padma Debi : [1962]3SCR49 ; Corp. of Calcutta Vs . L.I.C. of India : [1971]1SCR249 .(2) Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Tax Payers Association 1970 Rcj 989 it was observed in para 5 of the judgment on wards, thus :- The principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above three cases were applied by a Single Bench of this Court in Mrs. Sham Kapoor v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-17-1971
Reported in : AIR1971Delhi262
P.N. Khanna, J.1. This second appeal rises the important question about the scope of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When it came up for hearing before one of us (S.N. Shankar JJ.) it was urged on the authority of Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. v. Happy Homes (Private) Ltd., : [1968]2SCR20 , Sharma Charan v. Ved Paul (1966) 68 Pun Lr 69, Gauri Shankar v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi, , that Mohd. Usman, the tenant having died after suffering termination of tenancy by a notice to quit and then by an eviction decree against him, he left no estate or interest in the property, which could pass on to his sons and daughters, as the legal representatives, could not pled Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, as amended by Act 43 of the 1964, herein called `The Act' as bars to the suit against them for possession filed by the respondent-owner, involving their eviction. As these important questions of law were being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-17-1971
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi684
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) This second appeal raises the important question about the scope of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When it came up for hearing before one of us (S. N. Shankar J.) it was urged on the authority of Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd.. and another v. Happy Homes (Private) Ltd., : [1968]2SCR20 , Shama Charan v. Ved Paul, 1966 P.L.R. 69, Gauri Shankar v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi and others, that Mohd. Usman, the tenant, having died after suffering termination of tenancy by a notice to quit and then by an eviction decree against him, he left no estate or interest in the property which could pass on to his sons and daughters, the present appellants. As such, they. as his legal representatives, could not plead section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956, as amended by Act 43 of 1964, herein called 'the Act,' as bars to the suit against them for possession filed by the respondent-owner, involving their ev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-1971
Reported in : [1973]43CompCas197(Delhi); ILR1971Delhi149
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This case has come up beore us on a reference made by. one of us on an applicaton filed by the Official Liquidator on 22-10-1969 under Section 457(1)(c) of the Companies Act. 1956 for permission to sell tenancy rights of certain premises viz., basement portion of a building at 4/9 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi which was being held by a company of which the Official Liquidator was the Liquidator appointed by this Court on 7-3-1969 in Company petition No. 78 of 1968, on a monthly rental of Rs. 300.00 (2) It is not disputed that the tenancy held by the company viz. Globe Associates Private Limited (now in liquidation) and which will hereafter be referred to as the 'tenant company', was a monthly tenancy and had not been determined by the land-lord, Shri H. P. Sharma, who will hereafter be referred to as the respondent. The tenancy was not for a fixed period and was, thereforee, subject to the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958.' The said Act will hereaft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-30-1971
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi804
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The petition of the respondent made under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. This appeal against the said order is filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent issued on 2t-3-1919 for the High Court of Lahore since then applicable to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and the High Court of Delhi. Clause 10 reads as below :- '10.And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to said High Court of Judicature at Lahore from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise oi the power of superintendence under the provision of S. 107 of the Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!