Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1974P& H339
Man Mohan Singh Gujral, J.1. Lalit Behari Petitioner applied for the eviction of the respondent, Sant Lal, from a shop situated in Rori Bazar, Sirsa, mainly on the ground that the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that he had been directed by the Municipal Committee to demolish the same. The tenant resisted the application and pleaded that the building was fit for habitation and that the landlord had managed to get a notice issued by the Municipal Committee in collusion with the President who was related to him with the only object of getting the tenant evicted. In view of this, the parties went to trial mainly on the following issue:-'Whether building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation?'Relying on the rule laid down in Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath, 1963-65 Pun LR 528, Chuhar Mal v. Balak Ram, 1964-66 Pun LR 503 and Raj Kumari v. Shadi Lal, 1969-71 Pun LR 245, the learned Rent controller held that this ground was not available to the landlord as he had not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR313; [2005]141STC119(P& H)
Viney Mittal, J.1. In these petitions, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of orders passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Range)-cum-Revisional Authority, Ambala (respondent No. 2).2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts from C.W.P. No. 15749 of 2004.Petitioner-Hindustan Construction Company Limited, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-company') is engaged in the business of construction and claims to have its area of operation across the entire country. In the State of Haryana, it is duly registered as a dealer under the provision of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act') and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') and is being assessed by Assessing Authority, Yamuna Nagar. For the assessment year 1998-99, the petitioner-Company had returned a gross turnover of Rs. 20,65,04,077/-. as per the return, tax liability of the petitioner-Company was Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1969P& H110
R.S. Narula, J.1. The circumstances in which the following three question of law have been referred to this Full Bench at the instance of P. C. Pandit, J. are given in substantial details in the order of reference passed by the learned Single judge, on July 23, 1968, and need not be recapitulated any detail:-(i) whether an ejectment application under section 13 of the East Punjab urban Rent restriction Act (3 of 1949) can be field without the prior issue of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882; (ii) Whether the objection regarding non-issue of a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of property Act can be waived by the tenant; and (iii) whether objection as to the validity of the notice can be waived by a tenant in a case in which a defective notice has been issued. 2. The admitted facts giving rise to this reference are that the respondent (hereinafter called the landlord) gave one week's notice of ejectment to the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1959P& H381
..... act was repealed so far as the sub-section excluded the applicability of the act to the newly constructed premises in delhi. it inserted a new section 7-a which dealt with standard rent of newly constructed premises. by paragraph 7-a (c) various clauses of 1939 order were revived. this revival had the effect of the controller retaining the power of fixation of standard rent of such premises. the central legislature then repealed the ordinance and enacted the delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control (amendment) act 1947 (no. 50 of 11947). by this enactment newly constructed buildings were brought within the purview of the rent control act of 1947 by repealing section 1 (2) of the act so far as it affected the delhi ..... the municipal limits of delhi was determined by courts of law. the 1947 rent control act has brought about uniformity in the law relating to rent control by laying down that the standard rent of newly constructed premises wherever situated within the state of delhi shall be fixed by the rent controller while of other premises courts will fix it 11. the ground is now clear to determine if the provisions of section 7-a read with schedule iv of the 1947 act violate article 14 of the constitution in the light of the various decisions of the supreme court on the scope of this article. 12. it was not argued that the classification of premises as defined in the rent control act 1947 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1959P& H291
..... ganj, delhi. each portion consists of four flats and each flat has been given on rent to a different tenant. thus eight, tenants occupy this building. on the application of some of the tenants for fixation of standard rent under section 7a read with schedule iv of the delhi and aimer merwara rent control act, 1947, the controller fixed the rent at rs ..... superintendence is conferred on high courts. section 8(1) of the general clauses act which only reproduces section 8(1) of the english interpretation act with suitable verbal changes reads :'8. construction of references to repealed enactments : (1) where this act, or any central act or regulation made after the commencement of this act, repeals and re-enacts, with or without ..... writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certioran, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part xii and for any other purpose. (2) the power conferred on a high court by clause (1) shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the ..... 1958 sc 398, wherein it has been laid down:'the powers of judicial interference under article 227 with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature are not greater than the powers under article 226. under article 226, the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. but under article 227 the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1959P& H501
..... , 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 ..... . this limitation on landlord's rights did not exist in the 1952 act. it is urged on behalf of the tenant that in the present case five years have not elapsed since acquisition and therefore satya dev is not entitled to a decree for eviction. the learned counsel requested me to mould the decree so as to bring it in consonance with the provisions of section 14(6) of the 1958 act and for this purpose relied on the first proviso to section 57(2) of the act. section 57 reads :-- '57. repeal and savings. (1) the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 (38 of 1952), in so far as it is applicable to the union territory of delhi .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H187
ORDERRajendra Nath Mittal, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by Choeth Ram tenant, against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated January 21, 1976, by which an order of ejectment has been passed against him.2. Briefly the case of Deep Chand and Hans Raj (since deceased), who were petitioners before the Rent Controller, was that Choeth Ram was a tenant under them on payment of Rs. 60 per mensem as rent, and that he had not paid the rent since October 1, 1968. Consequently they filed an application for ejectment of Choeth Ram, tenant, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinfater referred to as the Act), inter alia on the ground of non-payment of rent. The other grounds for ejectment are not relevant for the decision of the present revision petition. The tenant contested the application for ejectment and pleaded that in the beginning the property was on rent with him at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem and the rent was enhanced to Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1953P& H30
Kapur, J.1. Counsel moves that this Court should declare Section 5(2)(d) of the Puniab Court of Wards Act (II of 1903), hereinafter referred to as the Act, void and 'ultra vires' of the Constitution of India and the continuance of the Superintendence of the estate of, the petitioner Raja Harmahendra Singh of Dada Siba by the Court of Wards as malicious, illegal and without jurisdiction. He also prays for the issue of a writ of 'certiorari' or any other appropriate writ of cancelling the notification issued on 31st August 1949, as a result of which the Court of Wards assumed superintendence of the estate of the petitioner and for a mandamus directing the restoration to the petitioner of the estate. Rule was issued on 9th November 1951 by my Lord the Chief Justice.2. The petitioner is the owner of the estate of Dada Siba in the district of Kangra, In 1933 the estate was taken over by the Court of Wards during the minority of the petitioner and was managed and administered by them. In 194...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1981P& H34
Harbans Lal, J. 1. This writ petitioner was heard by me in the first instance on April 25, 1980. After hearing the arguments on both sides, I came o the conclusion that there was an apparent conflict of opinion regarding the scope conflict of opinion regarding the scope and ambit of Section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953(hereinafter to be called the Act) between two Division Benches of this Court in Smt. Sham Kaur v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab 1974 Rev LR 25(Punj) and Balwant Singh v. Sodhi Lal Singh,1966-68 Pun LR 380: (AIR 1966 Punj 483) and keeping I view the importance of the questing of law involved, reference to a Full Bench was necessitated. It is in this background that the writ petition has been heard by the Full Bench. 2. For proper appreciation of the different contentions raised on both sides and the important legal question involved, brief reference to the fact of the case is necessary. Some land of Bahadur Singh, petitioner No. 4 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2000P& H88; (1999)123PLR718
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed by Om Parkash, hereinafter described as 'the petitioner' directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Sirsa, dated 25-5-1993 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Sirsa dated 7-10-1996. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-landlord Kailash Chander had filedeviction petition under Section 13 of theHaryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction)Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') alleging thatthe petitioner is a tenant in the suit premisesand respondent No. 2, son of the petitioner,is a sub-tenant therein. It was asserted thatthe property as mentioned above has beensublet without the consent of the respondent-landlord. That is the sole ground ofeviction surviving for purposes of the presentrevision petition. By way of elucidation, itwas add...
Tag this Judgment!