Court : Guwahati
H.N. Sarma, J. 1. Way back on 21.09.1977 the plaintiff-petitioner filed the Title Suit No. 78/1977 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Tinsukia, inter alia, praying for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises evicting the defendant from the two rooms measuring 10' x 10' ft with 6 feet verandah standing over Dag No. 1246(old)/3243 (new) Periodic Patta No. 437 (old)/925 (new) and Dag No. 1485(old)/3212 (new) Periodic Patta No. 437(Old)/ 932(new) of Tinsukia Town with the boundary as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint as suit premises.2. Admittedly, the area falls within the urban area as defined in Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act, 1972 and the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant for bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff and also on the ground of default in payment of monthly rent to the plaintiff-petitioner, in respect of the suit property which are statutory grounds of ejectment mentioned in the Act. In short, the case of the plaintiff w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2004Delhi248; 109(2004)DLT509; 2004(72)DRJ540
RFA No.833/2003 and CM 2088/2003. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 filed by the appellant. 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for possession with the prayer for a decree of possession in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants as well as a decree for recovery of arrears of rents and decree for recovery of damages/mesne profits. The appellant filed written statement. Thereafter in view of the written statement filed by the appellants, it seems that the respondent herein filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC praying for decree of recovery of possession on the basis of admissions made by defendants No.1 and 2. 3. Mr. Lonial, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the trial court erred in not appreciating that the rent of the premises was Rs. 3,217/- and was not more than Rs. 3,500/- and, thereforee, it was Rent Controller...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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
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 : AIR1976Delhi316; 1976RLR204
1. This is a defendant's Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the appellate judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 14th January, 1975, by which he has dismissed the appeal with costs and affirmed the decree of the court of first instance dated 6th February, 1974, for recovery of possession of the premises in dispute2. The premises in dispute consist of a portion of the ground-floor in house No. 4766, Partap Street, 23, Darya Ganj, Delhi. This property was and still is owned by the respondent. Prem Sarup Kapoor, deceased, (father of the lst appellant) was a tenant in respect of the said premises. He died on 8th August 1969. The respondent has instituted the suit on 5th November 1969, on the allegations that a notice dated 24th May 1968, terminating the contractual tenancy had been served on the deceased tenant on 27th May 1968, and the tenancy stood determined with effect from 30th June 1968. Thereafter the deceased be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1988Delhi577; 1988RLR651
Bahri, J. (1) These two Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts in brief are that M/s. Piyush Traders Private Limited, respondent No. 1. in both the writ petitions has constructed property bearing Municipal No. B-II/33, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Badarpur, New Delhi. The petitioner. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in both the writ petitions has sent a notice dated 30th March, 1984 proposing to fix the rateable value of Rs. 1,62.000 w.e.f. 1st April, 1983. Respondent No.1 filed objections to the said notice raising the plea that soon after constructing the building the same was let out to M/s. Jain sons Engineers Private Limited w.e.f. 1-10-83 for a period of 2 years vide a license deed dated 26th October, 1983 at the rental of Rs. 6,000 per month, but the said tenant vacated the premises by the end of December, 1983 and the same name to he let out to American Embassy w.e.f. January 1. 1984 on a monthly rental of Rs. 15,000. Hence the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1998)119PLR14
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. This is a regular first appeal against judgment and decree dated 31st July 1996, decreeing the suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits amounting to Rs. 18,700/- up to 17th January 1994, along with pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 6,865/- per month and interest @ 15% per annum.2. Plaintiff/respondent Amar Nath Jindal is the owner and landlord of property known as Jindal House bearing No. 270/2-3, Shri Asha Ram Road, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi. He had let out the ground floor and mezzanine floor of the aforesaid property for a period of five years w.e.f. 1st January 1989 to 31st December 1993 at a rent of Rs. 6865/- per month inclusive of all rates and taxes. This lease deed dated 8th November 1989 Ex.PW2/D-15 was duly executed and registered. This lease deed also provided for a renewal clause. Since the defendant did not get the lease renewed by giving one month's notice, before expiration of the term of the least on 31st December 1...
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 : ILR1973Delhi667
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This review application which purports to be made under section 114 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code has really to be treated as one made under Order Xlvii rule I Civil Procedure Code. For, section 151 has no application to this case. A review under section 151 is made to avoid the abuse of the process of the court and to correct some palpable error which the court committed by mistake. (Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab Air 1963 Sc 1909), (2) The only ground on which the application could be considered under Order Xlvii rule 1 Civil Procedure Code is whether the order dated 1st September 1972 which is sought to be reviewed disclosed 'error apparent on the face of the record' on 1st September 1972 when it was passed. (3) The present petitioners had contended before me in S.A.O. 178 of 1972 (Nathu Khan and others v. Mohd lsmail) that the order of eviction passed by the Controller under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the legal repre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi641
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) (ORAL).-THIS is a Revision under Section 25B, sub-section (8), of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, arising from an eviction petition brought under Section 14(1)(e) which, was tried under the new procedure. The Additional Rent Controller rejected the application for leave on the ground that it was belated. He then held that as there was no permission to defend the eviction petition, the provisions of Section 25B(4) had to apply and hence, eviction had to follow. There are two objections to the procedure adopted by the Additional ]Rent Controller. Firstly, it is submitted that the application for leave to defend was belated because the tenant was ill and hence, the application could not be filed within 15 days. It is submitted that the period could be extended. Regarding the other point, it is submitted that even if Section 25B(4) is applicable, still, the eviction order should not have been passed. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the fact that the sale-deed wa...
Tag this Judgment!