Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-21-1978
Reported in : 14(1978)DLT179; 1979RLR20
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) This is a second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent control Act 1958. The appellant is the tenant of the second floor of a house No. 6/29, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The premises in his possession comprise just one room, the barsati. He was inducted into the premises on i2th December 1968 at a rent of Rs. 130.00 per month. (2) On 19th August 1972, the respondent who is the landlords, instituted a petition for recovery of possession against the appellent. A number of grounds were taken in that petition, but the Additional Rent Controller made an order for recovery of possession only under section 14(1)(e) of the Act on the ground that the premises were required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family dependent on him. The other grounds were rejected. This order was made on 1st March 1974. An appeal by the tenant was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 6th January 1978, and the findings of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-06-1978
Reported in : ILR1979Delhi139
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) It is the effect of the change in the definition of 'tenant' in section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the principal Act) brought about by the retrospective amendment made by section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (amending Act), which is to be considered in these appeals referred to the Full Bench.(2) The Questions (1) What is the meaning of 'tenant' in section 2(1) of the principal Act firstly under the old definition as it existed prior to 1st December, 1975 and secondly in the amended definition with effect from 1st December, 1975 (2) Does the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal and others v. Parashram and others, : AIR1976SC2229 , apply to the construction of the old definition of 'tenant' in preference to the majority decision in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi and others, : [1964]4SCR892 , followed in J. C. Chatterjee & others, v. Shri Sri Kishan Tandon and others, : [1973]1SCR850 Whether in the new defin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-06-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Delhi186; 15(1979)DLT198; 1979RLR127
Deshpandie, C.J.1. It is the effect of the change in the definition of 'tenant' in Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the principal Act) brought about by the retrospective amendment made by Section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (amending Act), which is to be considered in these appeals referred to the Full Bench.2. The Questions:(1) What is the meaning of 'tenant' in Section 2(1) of the principal Act firstly under the old definition as it existed prior to lst December, 1075 and secondly in the amended definition with effect from lst December, 1975. (2) Does the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal v. Parashram, : AIR1976SC2229 , apply to the construction of the old definition of 'tenant' in preference to the majority decision in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi, : [1964]4SCR892 , followed in J. C. Chatterjee v. Sri Kishan Tandon, : [1973]1SCR850 . (3) Whether in the new definition clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 2(1) have to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-29-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Delhi26; 13(1977)DLT5; 1978RLR558
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This appeal has been filed by Miss Nirmal Chaudhary against the order dated 2nd August, 1977, passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the certified copy of the order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller dated 31-1-1975 which was impugned before it by way of appeal from the said order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller. (2) The learned Addl. Rent Controller had passed an order for ejectment dated 30-1-1976 against the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent and held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) of the said Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). (3) Since the order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller contemplated immediate eviction of the appellant, the appellant applied for certified copy of that order by an urgent application on 2-2-1976. The copy was not ready and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-28-1978
Reported in : AIR1978Delhi286; ILR1978Delhi368; 1978RLR378
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This is a tenant's Second Appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, by which the Rent Control Tribunal reversed the order of the Controller, dismissing the landlord's application- for the eviction of the tenant, on the ground that on account of the admitted user of a residential premises by the tenant for running a boarding and lodging house in the demised premise's, the tenant was liable to be evicted by virtue of clause (k) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for short, the Act, and remanded the case to the Controller for consideration under sub-section (II) of section 14 of the Act. The Second Appeal was filed in the following circumstances :- (2) The premises in dispute, which are admittedly of a residential nature, and built on leasehold land, were let out to the tenant by the predecessor-in-title of the present landlords, the respondents in this appeal There was some controversy at an earlier stage o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-08-1978
Reported in : 15(1979)DLT117; 1979RLR106
H.L. Anand, J. (1) These petitions u/s 25(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, sfor hort, the Act, by two occupants of different portions of the same building, belonging to the respondent assail a common order of the Controller by which, while refusing them leave to contest petitions for their eviction, they have been ordered to be evicted from the premises in their respective occupation. (2) The respondent who is admittedly a public servant, in occupation of Government accommodation allotted to him by virtue of his employment, sought the eviction of the petitioners under Section 14A(1) of the Act on the ground that by a general and a special order, made by Government, the respondent has been required to vacate the Government accommodation or in default to pay penal rent, and that this entitled the respondent to evict the petitioners, as the respondent was the owner of the property. Leave to contest the petitions was sought, inter alia, on the ground that each of the premises had been let...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-1978
Reported in : 15(1979)DLT300; 1979RLR354
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This second appeal by two brothers and legal representatives of the 3rd claiming to be joint tenants of a residential premises assails the order of the Rent Control Tribunal upholding that of the Controller allowing the plea for eviction. (2) The landlord respondent sought eviction of Hira Lal, appellant No. 1, on a number of grounds. Hira Lal resisted the petition contesting all the grounds, including the allegation that he had sublet, assigned or parted with possession of the demised premises in favor of his two brothers and had acquired another premises where he has been residing with his family. Hira Lal pleaded that the premises had been held by all the three brothers as Joint tenants since 1953. In view of this plea the landlord amended the petition and imp leaded the other two brothers. One of the brothers died during the pendency of the proceedings and his legal representatives were brought on record. The Controller allowed the plea of eviction under Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-27-1978
Reported in : 14(1978)DLT244; 1979RLR170
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a tenant's appeal. The only question in this appeal is : 'Has the tenant enjoyed the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) the Act ?(2) On March 15, 1976 the landlord Janak Raj, respondent issued a notice to the tenant Ved Rattan Bros , appellants in this case demanding arrears of rent from November 1965 to February, 1966 at the agreed rate of Rs. 200 per month in respe(3) On May 16, 1976 the tenant made a reply to the notice. He complained that in November 1965 the landlord had forcibly occupied a portion of the demised premises and removed the tenant's goods there from. He said : 'You have, thereforee, become dis-entitled to the entire rent of the premises till vou restore possession'.(4) On May 21, 1976, the landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground that the tenant was in arrears and had not paid rent inspire of service of notice of demand onim. During the pendency of the eviction case the Additional Controller made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-12-1978
Reported in : 16(1979)DLT266; ILR1979Delhi601; 1979RLR497
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) These six Letters Patent Appeals and Civil Writ can be disposed of by a common judgment, as they raise common issues arising out of a notification dated the 24th October, 1961 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') for the acquisition by the Government of about 16,000 acres of land situated in the village of Garhi Naraina which is situated within the limits of the Delhi Contonment (briefly referred to as 'Cantt.'). The public purpose specified in the notification was 'planned development of Delhi'. (2) A declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 7th December, 1966 in pursuance of the earlier notification under Section 4. The six appellants filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the above two notifications on various grounds. These petitions having been dismissed by Prithviraj.J. by his judgment dated 18th December, 1975 (reported in 1976 1 Delhi 375, the writ petitioners have preferred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-10-1978
Reported in : ILR1979Delhi300
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) A single judge sitting on the original side has referred this suit for deicision by a larger bench as he thought it involved important and complicated questions of law. The order of reference was presumably made under rule 2, chapter 2, Original Side Rules, as that rule stands after the amendment in, 1973. Since the entire suit has been referred, and not merely some questions of law, it is necessary to record a finding on each issue. For comprehending the issues, it is enough if I briefly indicate what is in the pleadings. (2) The suit was instituted on 6th June 1967. A decree was claimed for Rs. 17,16,758.96 comprising the principal sum of a loan and interest accrued thereon. The plaintiff was the Punjab National Bank Limited, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. By the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1969, this bank, along with many others, was nationalised. The undertaking of every such existing bank was transfer...
Tag this Judgment!