1
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-18-2002
Reported in : 2002IIAD(Delhi)261; 95(2002)DLT508; 2002(61)DRJ457; 2002RLR149
..... court in issac nina (supra), we are of the view that sections 4, 6 and 9 of the delhi rent control act, 1958, dealing withdetermination and fixation of standard rent, which have not taken into account the huge difference ..... 12. the control of rents and evictions, which were initiated in the wake of partition and population explosion in delhi, served a salutary purpose in the then prevailing situation. over the years the restrictions and limitations imposed andcontinued by various rent control legislations, namely, the new delhi house rent control order, 1939; the punjab urban rent restriction act, 1941; the delhi rent control ordinance, 1944; the ajmer-mewar control of rent and eviction order,1946; the delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act 19 of 1947; and delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act 38 of 1952, the delhi rent control act, 1958, have curtailed the growth of housing in general and rental housing in particular. evenamendment of the delhi rent control act, 1958 by act ..... rent would be the standard rent. but in case the basic rent of the premises per annum exceeds rs. 600/-, the basic rent together with ten per cent of such basic rent would be the standard rent. sub-section (1)(a)(2) of section 6 deals with the standard rent of residential premises which have been let out at any time on or after june 2, 1944 in respect of which rent has been fixed under the repealed delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act, 1947 (19 of 1947),or the repealed delhi and ajmer rent control act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-08-2002
Reported in : 2002IVAD(Delhi)432; 97(2002)DLT687
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian the grievance of the petitioner, namely Smt. Reeta Sahney, is that she has been unfairly and illegally passed over for the allotment of residential accommodation in the campus of Gargi College (Respondent No. 2). It is her contention that she is the senior most in the teaching faculty of Gargi College, having been in the service of the College for almost 35 years. Her grievance is that she has been denied allotment on the specious ground that she owns residential property within a radius of ten kilometres from the College and stand disentitled under the College Scheme. Attention has been forcefully drawn on her behalf to a notice dated 7.11.1991 calling upon the members of the staff to furnish an affidavit stating that - 'I or may spouse do not own a house or has acquired one and/or power of Attorney arrangements within a radius of 10 Kms. from the College.' Mr. Varma Learned Counsel for the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-01-2002
Reported in : 100(2002)DLT519
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Main question involved in this petition is whether notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is illegal and invalid because of its being not served within the year to which it related as contemplated under Section 126 of the Act and secondly imperative conditions of service under Section 444(1)(d) of the Act having not been complied with.2. The respondent No. 1 took the suit property on lease from DDA in 1979 for a premium of Rs. 14,795/-. He started construction on the said plot of land in 1980. It is also not in dispute that the said property was put to residential use only. A notice under Section 126 of the Act was issued by the petitioner proposing to enhance the rateable value of the said property from Rs. 2,520/- to Rs. 37,800- w.e.f. 1.4.1980 on account of erection of building on plot. The cost of the land was assessed at Rs. 1,600/- per sq. metre existing in the year 1980 on the basis that for differen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-18-2002
Reported in : 100(2002)DLT85; 2003(66)DRJ775
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Whether the provisions of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, is still in force and in any event has been impliedly repealed by Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, are some of the questions involved in these writ petitions.2. The petitioners herein are the owners/Bhumidars in respect of non-agricultural and agricultural land in the Revenue Estate of Kanjhawala, North West District of Delhi. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of Notification dated 8 9.1993 issued by the Lt. Governor Delhi intending to make a scheme for reconsolidation of holdings purporting to act under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act No. 50 of 1948 (as extended to Delhi) (Consolidation Act) and also for consolidation scheme under Sub-section (2) of Section 14 thereof.3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have averred that the Notification dated 8.9.1993 under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-27-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Delhi509; 100(2002)DLT259
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Constitutionality of a part of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called for the sake of brevity 'the said Act' for short) is in question in these writ petitions. BACKGROUND FACTS :-2. The petitioners are owners of the premises in question. The said premises had originally been leased out to Delhi Improvement Trust by an Indenture dated 18th August 1953. The said leasehold rights were purchased by the petitioner in 1973.Clause 4(c) of the said Indenture reads thus:'4(c) The lessee shall not use the said land and building that may be erected thereon during the said terms for any other purpose than for purpose of a residential house, without the consent in writing of the Lesser.'3. The petitioner asserted that the second respondent/tenant had not been using the premises for residential purposes and the user had been permitted by the lesser in terms of the lease deed. She filed an application for eviction of the respondent No.2 from the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-26-2002
Reported in : 99(2002)DLT147; 2002(63)DRJ563
ORDERThis order will answer the reference under Section 4(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').1. The Central Government vide notification No.S.O.960 (E) dated 27.9.2001, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, declared Students Islamic Movement of India (hereinafter for short referred to as 'SIMI') to be an unlawful association. Under proviso to Sub-section (3) of the Act, the Central Government also declared the said association to be unlawful with immediate effect, as in its opinion the circumstances so warranted. The Central Government by another notification No.S.O.961 (E) dated 8.10.2001, under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, constituted this Tribunal, and made the reference under Section 4(1) of the Act for adjudicating whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring the said association unlawful. The notification was accompanied by a resume of facts and grounds on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-19-2002
Reported in : 2002IVAD(Delhi)115; 97(2002)DLT772; 2002(62)DRJ401
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This revision under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only) assails an order dated 9.7.2001 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to defend and ordering their eviction from the premises in question under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the respondent-landlord had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioners on the allegations that he was the owner-landlord and petitioners were his tenants in respect of the ground floor portion of the property in question. The respondent claimed that his family compromised of himself, his wife and three school going children but the accommodation available to him was only one room with toilet/bath on the second floor of property No. 2502, Nalva Street, Pahar Ganj which was owned by his father. The respondent was be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jan-16-2002
Reported in : (2002)(145)ELT669TriDel
1. On the basis of intelligence, a packet which arrived from Singapore by Malaysian Airlines at IGI Airport, New Delhi in the name of M/s.Umesh Book Service (consignee) on 26-10-97 under AWB Bill No.232-8075-8705 and House AWB No. ACT-9015 was examined by officers of Customs in the presence of independent witnesses and representatives of the Airport Authority of India. The goods were described as "books/printed matter" in the Airway Bill. The packet was opened in the presence of the witnesses and was found to contain three cardboard cartons which, in turn, contained electronic goods such as 'Sanyo' cordless telephone, 'Casio' printing calculator, 'Sony' video CD/LD/player with remote control, 'Panasonic' video cassette recorder with remote control etc., totally valued at Rs. 14,28,800/-. The address of M/s. Umesh Book Service was found, on verification, to be fictitious. The consignment was not accompanied by any documents establishing lawful importation of the goods. Officers, theref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-26-2002
Reported in : 2003(69)DRJ751
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. These three appeals are filed by the Union of India the Delhi Development Authority and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi respectively against the same judgment/order dated 1st August, 2001 rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 923/97 which was filed by the unofficial respondents herein.2. The unofficial respondents herein had filed the aforesaid writ petition herein direction was sought to the appellants herein (official respondents) to decide representations dated 4th November, 1996, 6th December, 1996 and 24th January, 1997 of the respondents for releasing from acquisition the lands situated in Village Okhla Mahigiran, Mehrauli. They also made a prayer to the effect that the appellants herein should be directed to implement the National Housing Policy 1994 ('NHP-94' for short) as adopted by both the Houses of Parliament. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, certain significant developments took place. A decision was taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-22-2002
Reported in : 2002VIIAD(Delhi)432; 98(2002)DLT234
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Several question of importance are involved in this Letters Patent Appeal which arise out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court dated 7th July 1999 wherein the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein questioning termination of his services has been allowed.FACTS: 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The first respondent was appointed as General Manager of the appellant herein on or about 5th May 1992. His services were confirmed on 13th November 1993. The terms and conditions of service contained a provision whereby services could be terminated by either of the parties upon giving three months' notice or salary in lieu thereof. The writ petitioner respondent contended that he had been satisfactorily and diligently performing his duties where for he received appreciations and rewards. It has been contended that he being on honest and upright person, took stern decisions by imposing heavy penalties on erring companies and brok...
Tag this Judgment!