Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :9. h February, 2015 Judgment delivered on :13th February,2015 % CS(OS) 623/2010 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Plaintiff Through: Mr. Suryakant Singla with Mr. Shanto Mukerjee, Advocates Versus MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Through: .Defendant Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff Surendra Kumar Gupta against his brother Mukesh Kumar Gupta. It is a suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits/damages and for injunction.2. The plaintiff had purchased half undivided share in House No.E-262, Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi from Smt. Kamla Kundra vide sale deed dated 18th December, 1974. This is a registered document. It is stated to be the self acquired property of the plaintiff. It is on a plot of land admeasuring 250 square yards upon which initially there was one and a half storeyed building built upon it.3. Devinder Nath Gupta, half broth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2000)125PLR388
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed by Nanak Chand and two others (hereinafter described as 'the petitioners') directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Karnal, dated 7.6.1990. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and instead passed an order of eviction against the petitioners with respect to the shop in dispute. The petitioners were granted a month's time to vacate the premises.2. The relevant facts are that respondent Bal Kishan had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioners with respect to the shop in dispute. It was asserted that Nanak Chand, petitioner No. 1, is a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. He was running the business of tyre and tube repairs. Respondent Bal Kishan had purchased the shop from Smt. Notani Bal on 27.12.1978. The grounds of eviction pressed were that petitioner No. 1 had not p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1971Delhi164
1. Bhola Singh, the father of Ram Singh and Amar Singh appellants Nos. 1 and 2, was a tenant in house NO. 1313 Ward No. Viii, situated in Kucha Hiralal, Gali Kundewalan, Ajmere Gate, Delhi, on a rent of Rs. 67 per month, together with Rs. 6/7/- as house tax and Rs. 3/- as water tax, totalling Rs. 76/7/- per month. This house originally belonged to one Hira Lal, after whose death his son Khushawaqat Rai, respondent No. 1 claimed to be its owner. Bhola Singh appears to have started paying rent to Khnushwaqat Rai, to whom he paid all rents up to August 31, 1958. No rent was paid to him with effect from 1st September, 1958 to 30th June, 1959. Khushwaqat Rai respondent No. 1 had served on Bhola Singh, a notice of demand dated April 21, 1959 but there was no response. On July 22, 1959 respondent No. 1 filed a petition of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from September 6, 1958 to July 6, 1959. The tenant, Bhol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT590
Hardyal Hardy, J. (1) This second appeal has been filed by a tenant whose eviction has been ordered from a small loom described as a servant quarter and an open court-yard in a (2) The respondents had purchased bungalow No. 49 on Hanuman Road, New Delhi in 1958. At the time of purchase ey gto vacant possession of the entire bungalow except a small room described as a servant quarter and an open Court-yard which was in occupation of the appellant who claimed to have been in possession of the said portion of the property for the last 30 to 35 years, as according to him his father was an employee of the previous owner. The respondents who were Joint owners of the said bungalow with their father (since deceased) started living in the bungalow immediately after it was purchased by them. On the evidence that has been accepted by buth the Courts below, the respondents' family consisted of 18 or 19 members. Although the bungalow appears to be a fairly commodious one, the respondents sought evi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1969Delhi127
Inder Dev Dua, J.(1) This appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is directed against an order of remand made by the learned Rent Control Tribunal on 12-3-1968 after allowing the appeal of Shri Hans Raj Taneja and Smt. Raj Dulari from the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 14/9/1967 dismissing their application for eviction of the tenant who is the appellant in this Court. The learned Rent Controller disallowed the plea of a bona fide requirement on the ground that the application for eviction did nto contain an averment or allegation that the landlords seeking ejectment for their bona fide requirements, were the owners of the premises in question. I need nto go into the toher ground on which also the eviction order was claimed and which was repelled. (2) On appeal, the learned Rent Control Tribunal, following a decision of this Court, in which it was observed that the statutory requirement of the petitioner being the owner of the premises from which evicti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001VAD(Delhi)43; 92(2001)DLT97
ORDERA. K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of possession in respect of Premises No. 9283 & 3089 (old) - N-1 And N-5/2 (New) in the property known a 'N' Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi (hereinafter to be called as 'suit property' for short).2. While the suit is pending adjudication, this is No.14256/92 has been filed by the plaintiff seeking direction to the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs for wrongful use and occupation of the premises in question with further direction to the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month as damages till the disposal of the suit. For determining the issue involved in this IA, it would be appropriate to have a glance at the pleadings.3. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property which was purchased by the plaintiff in an open auction dated 16th March, 1961 by the Ministry of Rehabilitation through Chief Settlement Commissioner, Department of Rehabilitation (Now Ministry of Home Affairs). T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1988(14)DRJ113
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This is landlady's Revision Petition against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing her eviction petition on 8/11/1983.(2) The premises in question are the Ground Floor of property No. 254, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The respondents are the tenant. A lease deed was created in favor of the tenant under Section 21 for three years with , effect from 14-7-1975. After the expiry of this lease, a fresh lease was created in favor of the tenant. The rent was raised from Rs. 1900.00 to Rs. 2300.00 per month. According to the tenant this increase was made as a new lease was created for residential-cum-commercial purposes and the tenant was permitted to have his sales office in the premises. According to the landlady the new lease was only for residential purposes as before.(3) The landlady is a qualified Doctor by profession and was in Government service. After her retirement from service in 1972 she was residing at Dehradun. She developed severe ArthrIT is in both her knee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 114(2004)DLT691
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 14th January, 2004 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal' ), whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the landlord to withdraw his suit for eviction under Section 14(i)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.2. The facts of the case are that two petitions were filed by Smt.Krishna Dwivedi under Section 14(i)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against Surinder Kumar and Pawan Kumar with respect to tenanted premises No. 248, Sant Nagar, New Delhi - 65. Both petitions were taken up together and disposed by a common order dated 28th September, 2002, of the Additional Rent Controller (for short 'the Controller'), wherein the Controller has passed an order of eviction directing the landlord to rebuild the premises within four months and in default thereof, to pay Rs.10,000/- per month by way of compensation. Being aggrieved of this order of the Controller, both the parties filed appeals before the Tribunal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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
Reported in : 81(1999)DLT275; 1999(50)DRJ854
Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal allowing the appeal of the respondent under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. Originally, the petition was filed under Section14(1)(b), (c), (h) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. That petition was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller on 23rd April, 1994. The eviction petition was filed somewhere in 1983 by the respondent against the present appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal limiting their prayer only under Clause (h) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Mr. Warrier, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the premises were being used for commercial purposes right from the inception of the tenancy and, thereforee, no order could have been passed under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In support of his contention he has cited Dr. G...
Tag this Judgment!