Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-05-2002
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2304; 2003(3)KarLJ505
..... to the issue. in that case the supreme court considered section 57 relating to repeal in delhi rent control act, 1958. the said section reads as follows:'57(1) the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, insofar as it is applicable to the union territory of delhi, is hereby repealed.(2) notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said act pending at the commencement of this act before any court or other authority shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said act, as if the said act had continued in force and this act had not been passed: provided that in any such suit or proceeding for the fixation of standard rent or for the eviction of a tenant from any premises ..... in regard to a premises to which that act applied. the period of limitation for filing a revision had not expired as on 31-12-2001 when the old act was repealed. the matter did not fall under section 70(2) of the new act, for the reasons stated in the decision of this court in jain cloth stores case, supra. therefore, having regard to section 70(3) of the new act, read with section 6(c) and (e) of the gg act, the petitioners-tenants became entitled to enforce the remedy against the order of eviction by filing a revision petition, under section 50 of the old act as if the repealing act had not been .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-12-2002
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2088; 2002(2)KarLJ292
Kumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. All the appellants are tenants except the appellant in W.A. No. 62 of 1999 is a Charitable Trust. However, all the appellants challenge the constitutional validity of Section 2(7)(b)(iii) and (iv) and the Explanation thereto of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 17th of December, 1997 disposed of a batch of writ petitions upholding the constitutional validity of the impugned sections.3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge these writ appeals have been filed.4. These writ appeals appear to be an exercise in futility since the introduction of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The Rent Act received the assent of the President on 22nd day of November, 2001 (Karnataka Act No. 34 of 2001). It was published in the Gazette on 27th of November, 2001 and came into force by a Notification dated 5-12-2001.5. Section 70 of the Rent Act repeals the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1961), Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-06-2002
Reported in : ILR2002KAR1694; 2003(2)KarLJ276
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This revision petition under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the repealed Act'), is filed by the tenant against the order of eviction dated 27-6-1997 passed by the Small Causes Court in H.R.C. No. 4351 of 1980.2. The deceased respondent was the landlord and petitioner was the tenant in the Trial Court. The respondents herein are the legal heirs of deceased landlord. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to as 'landlord' and 'tenant' respectively.3. The brief facts of the case are, the landlord filed petition in H.R.C. No. 4351 of 1980 under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the repealed Act seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent and that the landlord requires the petition schedule premises for his bona fide use and occupation. The tenant resisted the eviction petition denying the claim of the landlord and the jural relationship and taking variou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-22-2002
ORDERSrinivasa Reddy, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short) the petitioner-landlord prays for setting aside the order dated 6.11.1998 passed in H.B.C.No. 1493/96 by the XVIIIth Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the eviction petition filed under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act.2.The facts necessary for the disposal of the revision, briefly stated, are as under:The landlady filed the petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the repealed Act for eviction of the respondent on the ground that the accommodation that was available with her was not sufficient for her requirement. The son of the petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1. The respondent examined herself but did not submit to cross-examination by the petitioner. The Court-below came to the conclusion that the requirement of the petitioner is reasonable but proceeded to dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-11-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)KarLJ244
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This intra-Court appeal involves certain constitutional issues of far reaching consequences. By the impugned order, the learned SingleJudge has declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 vested in this Court on the ground that the petitioner-institution should seek the desired relief before its jurisdictional High Court (Madras High Court), though the original order (Annexure-C), which created the Us, was passed at Bangalore by the 3rd respondent-Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education (in short the 'Regional Committee'). 2. Let us have resume of relevant facts. The appellant-institution claims to be situated at Veeravanallur in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is claimed to have been established by E, Managayarkarasi alias Grace Dorris Hannah and his wife. The institution intended to offer course of training in teacher education. As such, it made an application to the Regional Committee on 9-2-1996 seeking recognition under the Nation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-19-2002
Reported in : (2003)180CTR(Kar)87; [2003]264ITR124(KAR); [2003]264ITR124(Karn)
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The assessee as well as the Department, being aggrieved by the order dt. 31st July, 2000, passed by the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, have preferred these appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). These appeals relate to the asst. yr. 1995-96, the previous year being the financial year ending on 31st March, 1995. 1a. The appeals before the Tribunal were heard by a Bench comprised of three members, namely, Vice President and two JMs. The Vice President by a separate order had dismissed the appeals of the appellants. The two judicial members while agreeing with the final conclusion drawn by the Vice President have written their separate order by the giving reasons of their own. 2. The impugned order of the Tribunal had been passed in eight appeals preferred by the eight assessees. These assessees are the erstwhile partners of a dissolved firm which was carrying on business of manufacturing Beedies under the firm name M/s Mangalore Ganesha B...
Tag this Judgment!