Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-07-1972
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi820
..... .c 1165 (57) the section 57(1) of delhi rent control act, 1958 provided that the delhi and ajmer rent control act in so far as it was applicable to the unionterritory of delhi was being repealed. while repealing it, by sub-section (2) of the same section, a special saving was made in favor of suits and other proceedings then pending under the repealed act and it was provided that those suits and other proceedings should be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the repealed act as if that act had continued to be in force and the new act had never been passed. further one of the provisos to the section made the following provision:- 'provided that in any such suit or proceedings for the fixation of standard rent or for the eviction of a tenant ..... and portion of a gaddi was given by the plaintiffs to the defendants the latter sub-let one of the halls to the punjab national bank limited at a rent of rs. 250.00 per month and realised from the bank two years rent in advance, amounting to rs. 6.000.00. in that connection a letter (exhibit public witness .12/1) was written by shri jagdish chander on behalf of the defendant firm acknowledging receipt of two years rent in advance. with that letter a copy of the letter of girdhari lal (exhibit d/16) was also sent to the bank authorities .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-18-1972
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi137
S.N. Andley, J. (1) The respondent is the owner of the building on plot No. 12/18, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagfa, New Delhi, comprising of three floors. The ground floor of this building is in the occupation as a tenant of the appellant while the entire remaining building is in the occupation of the respondent. The aforesaid plot has some open spaces in the front and on two sides of the said building. The respondent filed the suit which has given rise to this second appeal on May 15, 1968 which was decided by Mr. M. S. Saini Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, by his order dated April 7, 1970.(2) The respondent's case was that barring the building on the ground floor, the other areas on the ground floor including the open spaces in 'this plot were in his possession; that in order to harass and annoy the respondent the, appellant placed an old, out of order and used Ford car bearing No. Dlc 7525 in one of the open spaces at the place marked 'X' in the plan attached to the plaint a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-05-1972
Reported in : 1972RLR259
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This order will dispose of four second appeals from orders Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 50 of 1969 filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), all directed against the identical order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 29th October, 1968, by which the appeals of the tenants were dismissed and order of Mr. P. K.. Bahri, 1st Additional Controller dated 11th March, 1968 was affirmed, finally fixing the standard rent of the premises in occupation of the various tenants at Rs. 45.00 per month. (2) The dispute between the parties relates to a property situated at Kashmere Gate. Delhi. This property formerly consisted of a large hall on the ground floor, but later on in 1963 or so it has been converted into various shops which have been let out to different tenants at a rent of Rs. 90.00 per month each. The respondents in these appeals having taken the premises on rent in 1964, filed objections under section 9 of the Act for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-1972
Reported in : 1973CriLJ512; ILR1972Delhi189
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) The short question for determination as contained in the referring order is as to whether the Controller functioning under the provisions of Act 59 of 1958 is a Court within the meaning of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This judgment will, along with the reference dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 45 of 1971.(2) The petitioner has moved this court under section 561(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings pending against him before respondent No. 2. The allegations in the petition are that having obtained the permission of the competent authority the petitioner-landlord applied for the eviction of his tenant Hari Chand and obtained the eviction order dated the 4th of December, 1968, against which the appeal taken to the Rent Control Tribunal was dismissed on the 9th of February, 1970. He then took out execution proceedings. Hem Chand, respondent No. I to this petition along with hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-12-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Delhi297
1. The main question for decision in this second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) is whether the respondent tenant complied with the order of the Controller passed under Section 15 of the Act to obtain the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act. But in answering this question, various other provisions of the Act. e.g. Section 2(k) , 4 to 9, 12 and 13, and Section 59 to 60 and 72 of the Contract Act have also to be considered.2. The premises of the appellant landlord were let to the respondent tenant from 1-7-1944., In the suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent filed by the landlord under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent control Act. 1952 the standard rent to the premises was fixed by Shri J. L. Tandon, Subordinate Judge at Rs. 717-75 including house-tax. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the High Court on 19-3-1964. during the pendency of the appeal. the Delhi Rent Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-14-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Delhi124; 8(1972)DLT351; 1972RLR37
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) This second appeal from order is directed against the order dated 7th June, 1968, passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the Tribunal set aside the order of the Rent Controller. Delhi, dated the 10th November, 1967. and remaded the case to the Bent Controller for decision on merits. (2) The only question for determination in this appeals as to whether it is open to the appellant to raise the question of lack of notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act after a long lapse of 4 years after the parties had proceeded to trial and led evidence on merits of the case. (3) With a view to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties it would bs expedient to record a few facts of the case. The respondents who are the owners of the kothi in dispute situated in Khilonewala Bagh near Rana Partap Bagh, filed an application under section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for eviction of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-1972
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi555
S.N. Andley, J. (1) Since the correctnsss of the decision of S.K.. Kapur J. in Sinf. Shakuntla and others v. Pi. Bhagwan Dass and others reported in (1967 (69) Punjab Law Reporter 130 (Delhi Section) was assailed by the respondents in these revision petitions, they were ordered to be placed before a Division Bench. The point of law is common to these revision petitions and it is whether permission to execute a decree for eviction passed before the coming into force of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act, 1964, was necessary, (2) The petitioner in all these petitions is the landlord of House No. 2767/1937 situate in Gali Ahiran, Malka Ganj, Delhi. The respondent in each of these petitions is occupying a portion of this house as a tenant under the petitioner. While Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, was in force, the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. 1956, was passed. Under section 19 of this Act, a decree for the eviction of a tenant from any building...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-16-1972
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi363
S.N. Andley, J.(1) The writ petition and the Letters Patent appeals cams up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench felt that several Supreme Court decisions and two Division Bench decisions of this Court had to be considered and they referred these matters to a Full Bench. This judgment will cover all these matters. (2) The writ petition is concerned with a property situate in Jor Bagh in New Delhi within the jurisdiction of the New Delhi Municipal Committee which is governed by the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The appeals are in respect of properties which are situate within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which is governed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Properties situate within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or the New Delhi Municipal Committee are again governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and were even before 1958 governed by the previous Rent Restriction Acts including the Delhi an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-04-1972
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi288
1. This regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the Union of India and the Custodian of Evacuee's property defendants and is directed against the appellate judgment and decree of Shri R.N. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 27th April, 1966 by which the learned Judge allowed the appeal and reversing the decree of the trial Court dated 6th September, 1963 finally decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for a declaration that the notification notifying the property in dispute as the evacuee property was illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 8th of May, 1929 Abdul Caffar and Allahawala purchased the property in dispute by a sale-deed (Exhibit P-2) and after the purchased, they, on 29th September, 1931, divided the property between them by a released-deed and sale-deed, with the result that Abdul Gaffar became the owner of property No. 37-A (corresponding to new No. 54) while Allahawal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-04-1972
Reported in : AIR1974Delhi26
1. This order will dispose of C. Ws. 127/67 and 331-D/66. The points involved in both the petitions; are the same and they have been argued together. For purposes of this order facts in C. W. 127/67 are being referred to.2. The petitioner in C. W. 127/67 is an occupant of 93 square Yards of land situated at Motia Khan since prior to 1950. This land is Government land. The petitioner paid damages for his occupation of this land at the rate of Rs.5/- per month per hundred square yards. On August 7, 1965 the Petitioner received a notice from the Estate Officer under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, hereafter called 'the Act' demanding a sum of Rs, 837.12 in respect of his occupation of this land for the period with effect from April 1, 1963 to March 31. 1965 at the rate of Rs.37.50 Per hundred square Yards i.e. Rs. 34.88 for 93 square yards. The petitioner was required to show cause on or before September 23, 1965 why an o...
Tag this Judgment!