Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-01-1997
Reported in : (1998)119PLR14
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. This is a regular first appeal against judgment and decree dated 31st July 1996, decreeing the suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits amounting to Rs. 18,700/- up to 17th January 1994, along with pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 6,865/- per month and interest @ 15% per annum.2. Plaintiff/respondent Amar Nath Jindal is the owner and landlord of property known as Jindal House bearing No. 270/2-3, Shri Asha Ram Road, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi. He had let out the ground floor and mezzanine floor of the aforesaid property for a period of five years w.e.f. 1st January 1989 to 31st December 1993 at a rent of Rs. 6865/- per month inclusive of all rates and taxes. This lease deed dated 8th November 1989 Ex.PW2/D-15 was duly executed and registered. This lease deed also provided for a renewal clause. Since the defendant did not get the lease renewed by giving one month's notice, before expiration of the term of the least on 31st December 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-10-1997
Reported in : 1997IIIAD(Delhi)872; 67(1997)DLT47
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) This appeal by Rajesh Gupta, appellant-plaintiff, is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge on August 9,1996 disposing of two applications, one under Order Xxxix Rules 1 & 2, Civil Procedure Code (I.A. 3013/96) and the other under Order Xxxix Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code (I.A. No. 3339/96). (2) Facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Appellant has filed a suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction against Ajit Prasad Jain and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondents-defendants, inter alia, on the allegations that he is a tenant in respect of shop Nos. 2 & 3 forming part of property No. F-14/17, Model Town-11, Delhi, under respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1, who started illegal construction on the rear portion of the said property, is now trying to raise construction on the roof of said shop Nos. 2 & 3 without getting building plan sanctioned from respondent No. 2 and obtaining consent from the appellant. B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-03-1997
Reported in : 1997VAD(Delhi)481; 70(1997)DLT82; 1997(43)DRJ246; 1997RLR598
(1) The present petition arises out of a decision of the Additional Rent Controller dated 15.5.1995, dismissing the eviction petition of the petitioner filed by her under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the premises in dispute, which is situated on a part of a freehold plot of land measuring 1000 sq. yards bearing No. M-9, New Delhi South Extension Scheme Part-II. The said plot was purchased by the petitioner sometimes in February , 1957. It is further stated that two separate portions were constructed, one bearing No. M-9A and the other M-9. The portion M-9A was given by the petitioner on perpetual lease to her son, Arun Wadhawan, who is gainfully employed in the United States of America. That portion was let out by the petitioner's son, Arun to the employers of the husband of the petitioner, who had in turn made the said premises available to the petitioner's husband and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-25-1997
Reported in : 1997IIIAD(Delhi)734; 67(1997)DLT769
Usha Mehra, J. (1) A 68 years old widow of an Army Officer who died in Chines War in the year 1962, filed an eviction petition under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act). She sought eviction against Mr. Anand Kumar her tenant residing in her House No. A-155. Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi. Eviction was sought on the ground that she needed the premises in question for her residence and also for the residence of her members of the family. Being a war widow she was allotted one room tentament having asbestos sheet roof by the Government in order to rehabilitate her and her family after her husband was killed in Chines War of 1962. The said tentament bears No. C-103, Sainik Sadan Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. She with her family was residing in that house. But now since her children had grown up she found that accommodation not sufficient for herself and for the members of her family. Her family consists of her three sons namely S/ Shri Prem Chand, Praveen Kumar and P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-01-1997
Reported in : 1998IAD(Delhi)341; 69(1997)DLT749; 1997(43)DRJ669
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) This revision petition raises an interesting and important question as to whether the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Acts would continue to apply and govern land in respect of which a notification has been issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act of 1957 for urbanizing the said land and declaring that the said rural area shall cease to be rural area? (2) This question has arisen for consideration in the facts stated below : (I)The petitioner, Shri Trikha Ram and respondent Shri Sahib Ram are real brothers, being sons of late Shri Chhedi Lal, Shri Chhedi Lal had purchased a plot of land bearing No. F-11, Subhash Mohalla, Village North Ghonda, Delhi, admeasuring 300 sq. yards, vide a registered sale deed in the year 1970 and raised some construction thereon. The petitioner, Shri Trikha Ram, who is in possession of portion constructed over 100 sq. yards, while respondent No. 1, Shri Sahib Ram is in possession of the portion of about 130 s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-10-1997
Reported in : [1998]233ITR43(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is a petition under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, filed by the Revenue arising out of the asst. yr. 1989-90 seeking a mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and referring the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was correct in deciding that it is no longer open to the Department to question about status in the year under consideration when the said point has been accepted in earlier years. Whether the principle of estoppel and rest judicata are applicable ? 2. Whether the Department is precluded from examining the various legal issues and points of the case when the same was under scrutiny for the first time 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from house property should be clubbed in the hands of Ms. Indu Puri by virtue of the provisions of s. 64(2) of the IT Act 4. Whether, on the facts and in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-24-1997
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)753; AIR1998Delhi266; 4(1996)CLT513; [2000]100CompCas839(Delhi); 69(1997)DLT874
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The plaintiff moved this Court in December 1977 for permission to file the suit as an indigent person under the provisions of Order 33 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court granted permission by order dated 22/03/1982. The plaintiff, as a consequence, filed a suit for recovery of Gold ornaments weighing 480 Tolas i.e. 5596.80 grammes deposited in safe deposit box under receipt No. 17/47 dated 3/06/1947 with the defendant .Bank or in the alternative for the price thereof amounting to Rs. 3,72,400. The plaint was subsequently amended and the plaintiff claimed recovery of the gold ornaments/jewellery or price there of as on the date of the judgment/decree in the suit.(2) The brief facts of the case are that late Rai Sahib Mool Chand,father of the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 and husband of Smt. Washeshran Devi, who was arrayed as defendant No. 2 but was deleted by the Court's order as she had expired during the pendency of the suit was an eminent civ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-25-1997
Reported in : 1997VAD(Delhi)928; 69(1997)DLT721; 1997(43)DRJ707
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Khazan Singh, respondent herein sought eviction against appellant of a room situated on the ground floor of property bearing No. 4/6, Singh Sabha Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. According to respondent the premises was let out for residential purpose. The appellant had in fact been using for the same purpose till such time he acquired a vacant possession of his own premises at C-4/21, Model Town, Delhi. He shifted to his house about three years prior to the filing of eviction petition. Secondly, before shifting the respondent handed over the premises under his tenancy to one Mr. Bakshish Singh. Thus the eviction was sought primarily on two grounds namely, (i) sub-letting, assigning and parting with possession to his own premises at Model Town, Delhi. The learned Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) granted decree of eviction in favor of the respondent on the ground of acquiring a vacant possession under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-09-1997
Reported in : (1997)58TTJ(Del)348
ORDERB. S. SALUJA, J.M. :The assessed has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi, dt. 31st October, 1994, on the following grounds :1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) XXII, New Delhi has erred :(a) in holding that out of total allowance of Rs. 90,169 drawn by the appellant, a sum of Rs. 60,169 was taxable and only a sum of Rs. 30,000 was exempt under s. 10(14)(ii).(b) in not treating the said allowance as exempt under Notification No. 143(E), dt. 21st February, 1989 issued under s. 10(14)(i).2. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the learned CIT(A)-XXII has on the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in not treating as exempt even the allowances as were similar to those declared as exempt by the CBDT in their communication No. 133/118-90 TPL, dt. 30th March, 1990 addressed to Air India, Bombay'.2. Brief facts in this case are that the assessed filed return of income at Rs. 1,24,280 and the same was process...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-09-1997
Reported in : (1997)62ITD78(Delhi)
1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi, dt. 31st October, 1994, on the following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) XXII, New Delhi has erred : (a) in holding that out of total allowance of Rs. 90,169 drawn by the appellant, a sum of Rs. 60,169 was taxable and only a sum of Rs. 30,000 was exempt under s. 10(14)(ii). (b) in not treating the said allowance as exempt under Notification No. 143(E), dt. 21st February, 1989 issued under s. 10(14)(i). 2. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the learned CIT(A)-XXII has on the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in not treating as exempt even the allowances as were similar to those declared as exempt by the CBDT in their communication No. 133/118-90 TPL, dt. 30th March, 1990 addressed to Air India, Bombay".2. Brief facts in this case are that the assessee filed return of income at Rs. 1,24,280 and the same was processed under s. 143(1...
Tag this Judgment!