Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1985Delhi106; 1984(7)DRJ255; 1984RLR672
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This second appeal by the tenant M/s. Apparel Trends against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal has arisen in the following circumstances.(2) The tenant took on rent the ground floor and the basement of the industrial premises bearing No. A-21/13, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase Ii, from its owner Shri Som Nath Daiidona by a deed of license dated 21st July 1976. (Shri Dandona has died and he is now represented by his legal heirs). The essential terms of the license are : 'WHEREAS the licensor Shri Som Nath Dandona and the Licensee M/s. Apparel Trends are desirous of giving and taking, being allowed privilege of using ground floor and basement of Industry Building at No A-21/13, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase Ii, New Delhi, and the licensee has approached the Licensor for the grant of requisite license, subject to payment of license fee of Rs. 6000.00 (Rupees six thousand only) per month, for carrying on the trade of making handloom and ready-made garments. Where...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1518; 1982(1)SCALE849; (1982)3SCC270; [1983]1SCR498; 1982(14)LC631(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. A provision conferring power enacted to mollify slogans chanting public opinion of speedy justice, if not wisely interpreted may not only prove counter-productive but disastrous. And that is the only raison d'etre for this judgment because in the course of hearing at the stage of granting special leave Mr. D.V. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent straightway conceded that this is such a case in which leave to defend could never have been refused. Unfortunately, however, not a day passes without the routine refusal of leave, tackled as a run of mill case by the High Court in revision with one word judgment 'rejected', has much to our discomfiture impelled us write to this short judgment.2. First the brief narration of facts. Respondent M/s. Prem Deva Niranjun Dava Tayal (Hindu Undivided Family) through Prem Deva Tayal, constituted attorney of Niranjan Deva Tayal (landlord) moved the Controller having jurisdiction by a petition under Section 14(1) proviso (e) [for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment pronounced on: March 21, 2014 CM(M) No.691/2013 & C.M. No.10403/2013 SHRI AMARJEET ATHOTRA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr.J.C.Mahindro, Adv. versus SHRI MANINDER SINGH & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr.M.L.Mahajan, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed judgment dated 1st May, 2013 passed by learned Appellate Court in an appeal filed by the petitioners against the eviction order dated 22nd January, 2013 in respect of two shops on the ground floor of property No.837/1 Janpura Road, Bhogal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premises) 2. Brief facts are that the respondents filed an application for eviction on 10th December, 2003 of the shops occupied by the petitioners in respect of the tenanted premises under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, cal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1996AP149; 1995(3)ALT853
ORDER1. In all these three Revision Petitions common question of facts and law arises and hence, 1 am disposing of the same by this common judgment. I refer to the ranking of the parties as arrayed in the trial Court.2. The proceedings arise under the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners in C.R.P. No. 520 of 1992 are the original tenants. They have challenged the order of eviction passed against them on the ground of default in paying arrears of rent in R.C.C. No. 80 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsiff), Rajahmundry, dated 15th October, 1990; before the lower appellate authority i.e., sub-Judge, Rajahmundry in R.C.A. No. 20 of 1990. To this R.C.A. No. 20 of 1990, the landlord had filed cross-objections challenging the order of the Rent Controller in refusing eviction on the ground of alternative accommodation secured by the tenants. The lower appellate Court dismissed R.C.A. ...
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!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC537b; (1981)83BOMLR204; (1982)2CompLJ551(SC); 1981(1)SCALE62; (1981)1SCC523; [1981]2SCR466
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The appellant Natraj Studies (P.) Ltd., and the first respondent Navrang Studios, a firm, entered into an agreement on March 28, 1970, by which the latter granted the former 'leave and licence' for the use of their two studios and other premises described in list I annexed to the agreement and situated at 194 Kurla Road, Andheri Bombay, and the machineries, equipments, property setting materials etc. mentioned in list No. 2 annexed to the agreement. Though the agreement was initially for a period of 11 months it was extended from time to time. By an agreement dated November 5, 1972, the original agreement was extended for a period of eleven months from January 1, 1973. The 'leave and licence' agreement was thus in force on February 1, 1973, with effect from which date Section 15A was inserted in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, by an amendment (Maharashtra Act 17 of 1973). The effect of Section 15A was that any person who was in o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT296
S.N. Andley, J.(1) This is a civil revision under sub-section (5) of saction 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1849 (Act 111 of 1949) against the judgment dated August 9, 1968, of the Appellate Authority constituted under sub-section (1) (a) of the said section of the said Act. The appellate Authority who is the District Judge, Simla District, Simla, allowed the application of the respondent herein which had been filed in the Court of the Rent Controller under section 13(3) (a)(i) of the said Act for the eviction of the petitioner herein from the top floor of the building known as North Brook Terrace, The Mall, Simla. (2) The undisputed facts are that the third, fourth a fifth floors of the North Brook Terrace were on tenancy with the respondent society. The fifth floor of the building opens on the Mall Road and the society was running a coffee house on this floor. The fourth and third floors were being utilized by the society as its kitchen and godown. The sixth floor w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003VAD(Delhi)473; 105(2003)DLT499; 2003(69)DRJ63
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25th January, 1982 passed by Rent Control Tribunal in Appeal 1079 of 1980.2. The premises in question was let out by late Shri Vishan Das Shivani to the appellants for commercial purposes with effect from 1st July, 1974. The appellants entered into a partnership business with one Ranjit Singh son of Mr. Bhagwan Singh for the transport business. The respondent who is the widow of Vishan Dass Shivani, filed an eviction petition under clauses (a), (b) and (j) of the proviso to sub-Section (1) to Section 14 of the Act. It was alleged that appellants had sub-let, assigned or parted with the possession of the premises in question to M/s Amar Transport Company, Agra, without the consent in writ of the respondent and the unauthorised sub-tenant had opened its branch in the premises in question. It was further contended that appellant had caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the property and had unauthorised ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 119(2005)DLT529; 2005(82)DRJ6
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.4.2001, passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller's order dated 30.8.1999, dismissing the standard rent petition of the respondent was set aside and the case and remanded back to the learned ARC for decision afresh in accordance with law after considering the provisions of Section 76(h) of the Transfer of Property Act.2. Briefly narrated, the facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner herein executed a mortgage deed dated 27.2.1973, in favor of the respondent in respect of the space comprising of 2200 sq.ft forming part of the third floor of the building known as 13-29, Block E, Harsha Bhawan, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The property was mortgaged for 25 years against a loan of Rs.3 lakhs. Clause 6 of the mortgage deed stipulated that in the event of mortgage being redeemed by the mortgago...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 113(2004)DLT424; 2004(76)DRJ412
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner is a perpetual lessee of premises bearing Office No. 2, First Floor and Servant Quarter 113 and 115, Atma Ram Mansion (Scindia House), Connaught Circus, Janpath, New Delhi which was given on lease to respondent No.1, a nationalised bank. The petitioner terminated the lease vide a legal notice dated 17.8.1991 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice was replied to by respondent No.1, the bank on 8.9.1991 alleging that the premises in question are covered by the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PP Act') and claiming that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') are not applicable. Respondent No.1 thus refused to vacate the premises.2. The petitioner thereafter issued a notice dated 13.9.1991 to respondent No.2, Secretary, Ministry of Finance asking for the appointment of an Estate Office...
Tag this Judgment!