Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2007)207CTR(All)125; [2008]304ITR413(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under Section 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for opinion to this Court:Whether in law and on facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the 'gross maintainable rent' should be adopted on the basis of 'annual reasonable rent' as per UP Rent Control Legislation ?2. The present reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1976-77.Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The assessee, an HUF, owns a building, which was occupied by the assessee for its own residential purposes. The value of that property was to be determined in accordance with Rule 1BB of the WT Rules. The question that arose was as to what should be the 'gross maintainable rent'. The contention of the assessee before the CWT(A) was that 'gross maintainable rent' should be taken to be the municipal valuation as determined by the Cantonment Board. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2857; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)784; 2005(2)AWC1697(SC); 2005(3)BLJR1976; 2006(2)BomCR855; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN58; 2005(2)CTC809; [2005(3)JCR153(SC)]; JT2005(5)SC79; (2006)2M
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. A building, as defined in the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was taken on rent from one Quasim, the predecessor of the respondents, by Ram Babu Jaiswal, the predecessor of the appellants, some time in the year 1958. Rent was enhanced and a fresh rent deed was executed on 7.4.1970. That tenancy continued. Quasim, the landlord died. His rights devolved on his heirs. It is the case of the appellants that they have taken assignment of the rights of certain heirs, being co-owner landlords, on 29.12.1988. The respondents in this appeal, the heirs of Quasim, filed House Control Case No.33 of 1993 under the Act, for fixation of fair rent. By order dated 22.3.1994 the House Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.4,950/- per month. The plea based on assignment of the reversion by some of the legal representatives of Quasim, the landlord, and the consequential extinguishment of the lease was rejected. An app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001IIAD(Delhi)153; 90(2001)DLT427; 2001(57)DRJ709
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant, who was defendant in the suit, against judgment and decree dated 19th December, 1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 256/91 filed by the respondents (plaintiffs in that suit) thereby decreeing the said suit in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant/appellant. The impugned decree runs as follows: 'a) a decree for Rs.5,500/- is hereby passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of commission charges for the period from 14th October, 1977 to 31st March, 1978 @ Rs.1,000/-p.m.; (b) a decree for Rs.25,500/- is hereby passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of commission charges for the period from 1st March, 1978 to 14th March, 1980 @ Rs.1,000/- p.m. and subject to payment of proper court fee; c) a decree for Rs.2,500/- is hereby passed for damages for use and occupation of premises for the period from 15th May, 1980 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(2)KLT415
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Can an application for appropriate directions regarding reconstruction or re-allotment under the second and third provisos to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 be maintained by a tenant who has not been completely evicted from the building which was subject-matter of the R.C.P. or continues to retain possession of a portion of the said building is one of the question arising for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition.2. The landlord is no more and his son has got himself impleaded as additional revision petitioner. After a prolonged litigation which commenced wayback in 1973, the landlord could obtain an order of eviction against the respondents-tenants (legal heirs of the deceased original tenant) under Section 11(4)(iv). The delay was mainly due to a plea of kudikidappu raised by the tenant which was ultimately repelled by the Land Tribunal upon a reference case initiated in that context. The landlord coul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2006)129CompCas733
1. This is a petition filed under Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking for rectification of the register of members of M/s.Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. (Peerless). The facts of the case are : one M/s. Poddar Udyog Limited (Udyog) held 2,18,240 shares of Peerless. By an order dated August 19, 1997, the Calcutta High Court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement amongst others between Udyog, Poddar Projects Limited (Projects) by which certain properties, rights and interests of Udyog were transferred to and vested in Projects. The impugned shares were also a part of the assets transferred by that scheme. On or about September 3, 1999, Projects sold the impugned shares to M/s. Vijaya Finance Corporation (Vijaya) for a consideration of about Rs. 41.46 lakhs by executing relevant transfer instruments. Projects also executed a power of attorney dated July 30, 2001, in favour of Vijaya to exercise all rights in respect of the impugned shares and executed fresh ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971AP298
ORDER1. These two revision petitions arise out of the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Building under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.2. The facts that have given rise to the two petitions may briefly be stated. On 5-11-1963 the landlord presented an application for the enhancement of the rent. The petition for enhancement A.B.A. No . 42 of 1963, was decided on 27-4-1965. The leased premises consist of two distinct parts, one used for a residential purpose and the other for a non-residential purpose and the other for a non-residential purpose. The premises are situate in an important locality at Tenali. It is borne out by the evidence that the Indian Bank is located opposite the leased premises. The Post Office is located in the immediate vicinity. Form the evidence one can easily gather that there is a good deal of business activity around the leased premises, not to speak of the admission that part of the leased premises had been used as godown...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1970Delhi26; 6(1970)DLT43
ORDER1. S.A. O. 435 of 1968 was dismissed in default on 2-1-1969. Neither party was represented in this Court on that day. The appellant has applied for setting aside the dismissal in default and for restoring the appeal to its original number and for its hearing on the merits. This application has been presented under Order 41, Rule 19, read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure. The averments made in this application are as under:-'1. That the above-mentioned appeal was fixed for hearing in the Court of the Hon'ble Chid Justice on 2-1-1969. It was No. 10 in the list. This appeal was on the cause list since 5th December 1968. 2. That the appellant-petitioner had been attending the Court diligently throughout. Even on 2-1-1969, he attended the Court. At 12 A.M., the petitioner enquired from the Reader attached to the Hon'ble Chief Justice as to whether there was any possibility of his case being taken up and he was told that there were very many big cases above him and there was ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 15(1979)DLT330; 1979RLR370
Leila Seth, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 1st February, 1973. (2) The facts in brief, are that the appellant took a room on the ground floor of premises No. A-430, defense Colony, New Delhi on a monthly rental of Rs. 150.00 . He was running his business under the name and style of M/s. Seth Estates Agency therein. No lavatory, bath room or kitchen or any other facility was attached to this room. On 3rd June, 1963 arent note was executed which is Exhibit A-9 which mentions that the room has been taken for residential purposes. The landlord was one Girdhari Lal predecessor of the respondents. (3) Girdhari Lal filed an ejectment petition dated 27th December, 1965, against the appellant mainly on the ground of misuse etc. This was suit No. 43 of 1965. On 10th October, 1966 Girdhari Lal filed another petition for ejectment being suit No. 366/66. On 20th June, 1967, Girdhari Lal died. On 20th September, 1967, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 49(1993)DLT543; 1992(24)DRJ450; 1993RLR190
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This revision petition has been filed by tenant against the order of eviction dated 293.1985 in favor of the respondent-landlord by the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi (ARC). The landlord had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of a room and a Kotha on the first floor in House No.1331, Vaid Wara Maliwara, Delhi on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. Regarding necessity the landlord stated in para 18(a) of the petition that he had let out the premises for residential purposes. He had a small share in House No.2208, Kucha Alam Chand, Delhi where he had only two small rooms. His third son Ashok Kumar resided in those two rooms with his wife and three children. The landlord himself had two rooms, one Kotha and one kitchen in premises No.1331, Vaidwara, Maliwara, Delhi on the first floor and had no other residential accommodation in Delhi. The aforesaid portion was quite insufficient for his residence and the family members dependent upon him....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1995IAD(Delhi)356; 57(1995)DLT131; 1995(33)DRJ178
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order proposes to dispose off the following preliminary issue No.2 :- ' Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit in view of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act?'(2) The plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction of the defendant/tenant, impleading the sub-tenants also invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court on the ground that the premises are fetching monthly rent exceeding Rs. 3,500.00p.m. and so the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) are excluded. The contention of the tenant, on the other hand is that in so far as he and the landlord-plaintiff are concerned, the agreed rent of the premises does not exceed Rs. 3,500.00 and so Section 3(c) of the Act would not apply, the rent paid or payable by the sub-tenant to the tenant being irrelevant for the purpose of determining the applicability of the Act to a suit between a landlord and a tenant.(3) Vide registered deed of lease dated 5th January, 1978 the ...
Tag this Judgment!