Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1972RLR259
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This order will dispose of four second appeals from orders Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 50 of 1969 filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), all directed against the identical order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 29th October, 1968, by which the appeals of the tenants were dismissed and order of Mr. P. K.. Bahri, 1st Additional Controller dated 11th March, 1968 was affirmed, finally fixing the standard rent of the premises in occupation of the various tenants at Rs. 45.00 per month. (2) The dispute between the parties relates to a property situated at Kashmere Gate. Delhi. This property formerly consisted of a large hall on the ground floor, but later on in 1963 or so it has been converted into various shops which have been let out to different tenants at a rent of Rs. 90.00 per month each. The respondents in these appeals having taken the premises on rent in 1964, filed objections under section 9 of the Act for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1962)1MLJ441
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a premises in Madras, and the respondent is his tenant in that premises. The respondent filed an application before the Rent Controller under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1949 seeking to have fair rent fixed for the said premises. After an enquiry into the matter the Controller fixed the fair rent in a certain amount. The petitioner aggrieved by the said decision filed an appeal, H.R.A. No. 272 of 1959 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The respondent was duly served with notice of appeal and the appeal was posted for final hearing on 3rd November, 1959. The respondent failed to appear on that date before the appellate authority with the consequence that he was declared ex parte, and the appeal was allowed. On the next day, 4th November, 1959 the respondent filed an application, M.P. No. 2321 of 1959, before the appellate authority, the Court of Small Causes at Madras, for setting aside the exparte ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA THURSDAY, THE9H DAY OF JANUARY201419TH POUSHA, 1935 RCRev..No. 301 of 2012 () -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA1432011 OF3D ADDL.DISTRICT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE COURT, KOZHIKODE ------------------- REV.PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS2TO7: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. AYANIKKATTU UNNIRAJA, AGED65YEARS S/O.AYANIKKATTU CHATHU MASTER, PO PANTHEERANKAVU KODAL AMSOM, KAILAMADAM DESOM, KOZHIKODE.2. AYANIKKATTU PRASANNA MOHAN, AGED60YEARS S/O.AYANIKKATTU CHATHU MASTER, PO PANTHEERANKAVU KODAL AMSOM, KAILAMADAM DESOM, KOZHIKODE.3. AYANIIKKATTU PREMADA KUMARI, AGED61YEARS D/O.AYANIKKATTU CHATHU MASTER, PO PANTHEERANKAVU KODAL AMSOM, KAILAMADAM DESOM, KOZHIKODE.4. AYANIKKATTU DEVIL KUMAR, AGED57YEARS S/O.AYANIKKATTU CHATHU MASTER, PO PANTHEERANKAVU KODAL AMSOM, KAILAMADAM ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.48/2012 21st January, 2014 % SHRI JAGDISH Through: ......Appellant Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. KRISHNA KUMARI Through: ...... Respondent Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the appellate Court dated 28.1.2012 by which the appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court dated 18.2.2011 which had dismissed the suit of the respondentlandlord herein (plaintiff in the trial Court) filed for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and future damages.2. Appellate Court by the impugned judgment has held that the suit property is situated in the area to which no notification has been issued under sub-Section (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR2215; 1989(2)KarLJ172
Hiremath, J. 1. The respondent D.P. Sharma is the owner of a building named 'Sunitha Bhavan' on Tippu Sultan Palace Road, at Bangalore. On 18-11-1982, he leased it out to the appellant Smt. D. Shakuntala for running a hotel-restaurant under a lease deed on a monthly rent, of Rs. 4,500/- for a period of 5 years. The appellant appears to have added some amenities like kitchen on the first-floor and a hotel called 'Hotel Kamadenu' was being run in the said premises by a partnership firm which appears to have later come into existence between the said D. Shakuntala and one A.M. Ahuja. It appears, in 1988 there was no smooth sailing for this hotel. There was labour, unrest and the hotel was being run under loss. The partnership even thought of closing it down. It appears, the employees of the hotel were against the closing down of the establishment and the partnership was not happy with them. A suit for injunction in O.S.No. 572/88 came to be filed before the City Civil Court against the em...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1971Delhi262
P.N. Khanna, J.1. This second appeal rises the important question about the scope of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When it came up for hearing before one of us (S.N. Shankar JJ.) it was urged on the authority of Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. v. Happy Homes (Private) Ltd., : [1968]2SCR20 , Sharma Charan v. Ved Paul (1966) 68 Pun Lr 69, Gauri Shankar v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi, , that Mohd. Usman, the tenant having died after suffering termination of tenancy by a notice to quit and then by an eviction decree against him, he left no estate or interest in the property, which could pass on to his sons and daughters, as the legal representatives, could not pled Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, as amended by Act 43 of the 1964, herein called `The Act' as bars to the suit against them for possession filed by the respondent-owner, involving their eviction. As these important questions of law were being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi684
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) This second appeal raises the important question about the scope of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When it came up for hearing before one of us (S. N. Shankar J.) it was urged on the authority of Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd.. and another v. Happy Homes (Private) Ltd., : [1968]2SCR20 , Shama Charan v. Ved Paul, 1966 P.L.R. 69, Gauri Shankar v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi and others, that Mohd. Usman, the tenant, having died after suffering termination of tenancy by a notice to quit and then by an eviction decree against him, he left no estate or interest in the property which could pass on to his sons and daughters, the present appellants. As such, they. as his legal representatives, could not plead section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956, as amended by Act 43 of 1964, herein called 'the Act,' as bars to the suit against them for possession filed by the respondent-owner, involving their ev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 49(1993)DLT491; 1993(25)DRJ92
Arun Kumar, J.(1) This is a suit for possession of Property No.11, Communality Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The tenant has not been paying any rent for years. It neither wants to vacate the premises nor it wants to pay anything towards rent. It claims that these privileges are conferred on it by the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,1985. The case is a glaring example of abuse of the provisions of the said Act. (2) Vide lease deed dated 25th November,1981, the defendant company took on lease the suit property comprising of ground floor, first floor, basement, loft and mezzanine floor and projector on a monthly rent of Rs.29,686.00 . The lease deed is dated 25th November,1981 and was registered with the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi onllthMarch,1982. The plaintiff has filed the plan of the property comprised in the tenancy of the defendant. The lease deed was initially for a period of three years w.e.f. 1st March, 1982 and contained an option for the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~20 * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA5042017 Date of Judgment:19. h May, 2017 RAVI CHAUDHARY ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sajjad Adil, Adv. versus KANTA AHUJA Through: Ms. Prachee Satija, Adv. with Mr.Jai ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL Sahai Endlaw, Adv. VINOD GOEL, J.(ORAL) C.M.18976/2017 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CAV. No.490/2017 Since the counsel for the respondent has appeared, the caveat stands discharged. RFA5042017 1. Challenge in this appeal is judgment and decree dated 28th March, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Judge-01 (South), New Delhi, in Civil Suit No.7791/2016 by which on admission of the appellant/defendant under Order XII Rule 6 CPC a decree of possession was passed against him in respect of Second Floor of C- 110, New Delhi South Extension, Part II, Delhi-110094. RFA5042017 Page 1 of 11 2. A Lease Deed dated 16th October, 2014 registered in the Offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.M.(M) No.1305/2011 12th November, 2014 % SMT. PRAKASH KAUR CHADHA & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Arun Batta, Advocate. versus SMT. SUDESH MEHTA & ANR. Through ..... Respondents Mr.Anil Kher, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kunal Kher and Mr.Ankur Gosain, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners/landlords impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 10.8.2011 by which the Additional Rent Control Tribunal/first appellate court has set aside the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller/Original Court dated 12.8.2008, and dismissed the eviction petition filed by the present petitioners on the ground of subletting under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). CM(M) No.1305/2011 page 1 of 15 2. The tenante...
Tag this Judgment!