1
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-20-1959
Reported in : AIR1960P& H11
..... , to whom the defendant may be referred to approach, the tenant may apply for refund of the excess to the court or the controller as provided by s. 12 of the act or s. 13 of the delhi rent control act, 1958.(12) on behalf of the tenants it is submitted that the above course, if adopted, will lead to deprive a tenant of his right to claim the relief under s. 8(1)(b) of the act by way of defence to a suit for recovery of rent, to which he would be entitled even though the period of limitation for an application for fixation of standard rent, as provided by s. 11 of the act, may have expired.that difficulty would not doubt arise in suits for recovery ..... claimed by the plaintiff, because of the bar laid down y s. 16 of the provincial small cause courts, act and because of thee being no provision in that connection in the act.(11) this anomaly would be all the more conspicuous under the delhi rent control act, 1958, which came into force on 9-2-1959, and repealed the act, xxxviii of 1952. in the said act, the authority to determine the standard rent is vested in a special tribunal, the controller, appointed under that act. the controller is not authorised to hear and decide a suit for recovery of rent or to make any order in respect thereof. to whom thanes the plain to be presented, if the same is returned .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-12-1959
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 , is hereby repealed. 2.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
Decided on : Mar-11-1959
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
Decided on : Dec-24-1959
Reported in : AIR1960P& H335
Tek Chand, J.(1) The question which has been referred to the Full Bench is--'whether ignorance of the death of a defendant is a sufficient cause for setting aside the abatement when the application to bring the legal representatives of he deceased defendant on the record is made after the expiry of the period of limitation'.(2) The facts and circumstances under which this question arose may be stated briefly. The plaintiffs who are 27 in number, had instituted a suit against 119 defendants besides the Union of India, who was defendant No. 120, claiming rendition of accounts in respect of income and profit etc. and also possession by way of partition of the property mentioned in the schedule attached to the plaint in respect of 108 1/2 shares out of 262.The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 to 119 (inclusive) were engaged in partnership business of pressing and bailing cotton and wool in the town of Fazilka, District Ferozepur, in the name and style of Om Press Company in the year 1938. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-23-1959
Reported in : AIR1961P& H143
Harbans Singh, J.1. This order will dispose of two Regular First Appeals Nos. 143 and 144 of 1952, in both of which, the facts are similar and the points of law that arise are indentical.2. The facts giving rise to the suit, out of which appeal No. 143 has arisen, may briefly be stated as follows : Kanwar Rajinder Singh defendant No. 2, (at that time a minor) son of Raja Sham Singh of Dada Siba in Kangra District, was under the Court of Wards and inter alia owned five squares of land situated at Chak No. 2/1 AL, Tehsil Okara, District Montgomery (now. in West Pakistan). The Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, who managed this estate, issued a notice in the month of November, 1948, inviting tenders for the giving of this land on lease for a period of one year, namely, for Kharif 1947, and Rabi 1948.Thakar Dalip Singh plaintiff (now represented fay Raja Dharam Dev Chand respondent), submitted a tender offering Rs. 11.125/- which was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra. The whole of this...
Tag this Judgment!