Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1977RLR240
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This revision petition has been filed under sub-section (8) of section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and is directed against the order of the 1st Additional Controller, dated 24th May, 1976 by which he has refused the tenant leave to contest the petition for eviction and ordered eviction. (2) The petition in this case has been filed by the respondent landlord for recovery of possession of the premises in dispute on the ground of bona fide personal necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. In a detailed judgment delivered by me in V. L. Kashyap v. R. P. Puri, Cr 369 of 1976, on 22nd September, 1977 RLR 397,1 have laid down the rule of law as to what defense are legally open to a tenant in an eviction petition for bona fide personal necessity under clause (e) of the relevant proviso (in contradistinction to the petition under section 14A of the Act). I have also i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CS(OS) No. 2498/2012 10th December, 2012 M/S SAURABH BUILDCON PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Umesh Shandilya, Adv. versus M/S ASTER TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this judgment I am decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/landlord filed for possession and mesne profits qua the relief of possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.2. This suit is filed by the plaintiff/landlord for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits. The suit premises are 71/5, Shivaji Marg, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110015 admeasuring a total of 4156 sq.ft. Plaintiff is the subsequent purchaser of the suit premises and original landlord/erstwhile owner was M/s. Delhi Floorings Pvt. Ltd. Though the plaintiff claims the document of purchase as a Sale Deed dated 29th December, 2009, however, this docum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Date of decision:28. h August, 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA1962017 & CM No.27311/2017 (for stay) * % + CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW KUSUM GUPTA Versus SHARDA Through: Mr. Yog Verdhan, Adv. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shamindra Kadian, Adv. ..... Respondent 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 27th March, 2017 in RCA No.4/2017 of the Court of Additional District Judge (South-West)]. of dismissal of First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree [dated 26th December, 2016 in Civil Suit No.425372/2016 of the Court of Senior Civil Judge (South-West)]. allowing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant for recovery of possession of immoveable property and for recovery of rent and mesne profits.2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 1st August, 2017, when notice thereof was orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % RSA 186 of 2005 + Date of Decision: 6th January, 2012 # KEWAL KRISHAN JAITELY .....Appellant ! Through: Mr. G.P. Thareja and Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Advocates Versus $ ACHARAJ RAM KAPUR and ORS. ....Respondents Through: Respondent no.3. CORAM: * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN JUDGMENT P.K BHASIN,J: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.03.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge as the First Appellate Court whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.03.1998 passed by the Court of Civil Judge in a suit filed by one Shri Achraj Ram Kapur, who died during the pendency of this appeal and is now being represented by his legal heirs, against the appellant herein for a decree of possession and mesne profits in respect of the suit land had been affirmed..2. This being a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure was admitted for hearing on the following two RSA 186/2005 Page 1 of 12 substantial questions of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1983J& K65
I.K. Kotwal, J.1. This is defendant's revision petition, who in a suit for ejectment, out of which the revision petition has arisen, has been directed by the trial Court to answer certain interrogatories delivered to him by the plaintiff in terms of Order 11, Rule 1 C.P.C. The issues were raised in the suit by the trial Court on the pleadings of the parties, which read as under:1. Whether annual income of the defendant is more than Rs. 40,000.00 and he is not entitled to protection of J. & K. Houses and Shops Rent Control Act ?O. P. P.2. Whether the tenancy of the defendant has been terminated by the service of a legally valid notice ?O. P. P.2. The onus of these issues being on him, the plaintiff, who is respondent herein, by making an application to that effect sought to serve the following set of interrogatories on the petitioner:(1) What is the constitution of M/s. Delhi Vanaspati Syndicate ?(2) Where is the head office of the defendant company ?(3) What is the total annual income ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC560; JT1989(2)SC483; 1989Supp(1)SCC430; [1989]2SCR629
S. Ranganathan, J.1. This is a batch of appeals and writ petitions challenging the validity of a notification issued on 15-12-1986 by the Central Government under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act (Act of Parliament No. 31 of 1966), hereinafter referred to as 'the Reorganisation Act'. By this notification, the Central Government purported to extend to the Union territory of Chandigarh - hereinafter referred to also as 'Chandigarh' - The provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 (Punjab Act 2 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1985 Act), as it was in force in the State of Punjab at the date of the notification and subject to the modifications mentioned in the said notification. The Punjab and Haryana High Court by its judgment in Ramesh Birch v. Union , upheld the validity of the above notification and hence the special leave petitions. The writ petitions have been directly filed in this Court challenging the validity of the notification...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)139PLR400
..... respondents, validity of the newly inserted section 3(c) in the delhi rent control act which came to be incorporated by act no. 52 of 1988 with effect from 1.12.1988 and which provided that the provisions of the delhi rent control act will not apply to any premises whose monthly rent exceeded rs. 3,500/-, was impugned by the tenants in delhi high court. the writ petition, however, was dismissed holding that section 3(c) of the act was a valid piece of legislation. in ..... act was repealed by the madras buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1949. section 13 of the new act contained a provision for exemption from the operation of the act by the state government which was in the following terms:-'notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the state government may, by a notification in the fort st. george gazette exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this act.' the landlord applied to the government seeking exemption of his building from the provisions of the rent act but his application ..... and the legal principles which are to control any given cases and must provide a standard to guide the officials or the body in power to execute the law. the essential legislative function consists in the determination or choice of the legislative policy and of formally enacting that policy into binding rule of conduct.'33. somewhat similar principles were reiterated by the supreme court in edwards mins company limited' case (supra) while observing tha .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR405; 1999(1)BomCR643; (1999)1BOMLR687; [1999(81)FLR767]; (1999)IILLJ109Bom; 1999(1)MhLj489
ORDERB. N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Award of the 2nd respondent. First Labour Court, Mumbai, dated 16th April, 1996, made in Reference (IDA) No. 439 of 1986.Facts:2. The petitioner is a foreign Airline Company incorporated under the laws of Saudi Arabia and owned by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is engaged in the transportation of passengers, cargo and mail by air and has offices at various places all over the world including one at Mumbai. The 1st respondent is an ex-employee of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the Presiding Officer of the First Labour Court, Mumbai, exercising adjudicatory jurisdiction under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')3. The 1st respondent, Mrs. Shehnaz Mudbhatkal, joined the service of the petitioner on 16th November, 1978, as Secretary to the Station Manager. Prior to joining the petitioner's service, she was wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All48
Agarwala, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was a monthly tenant of a shop at Lucknow belonging to him, that the monthly rent was Rs. 18 12 0 that he had obtained the permission of the Rent Control Officer to eject the defendant, that he had served the defendant with a notice to quit by 31-1-1950, that this notice was served on the defendant on 23-12-1949 and that the defendant had cot vacated the shop in spite of notice and that therefore he had to bring the suit for his ejectment. He claimed a sum of Rs. 22 12-0 as arrears of rent. In defence the defendant admitted that he was a tenant of the shop in dispute for a long time and that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 18-12-0 per month. He did not however admit the rest of the allegations with regard to tenancy on the ground that he had no knowledge thereof. He admitted the receipt of the notice to quit but he did not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1977Raj255; 1977()WLN441
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, C.J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff (East) Jaipur City dated 6th Oct., 1972 whereby he permitted an amendment to be incorporated in the plaint.2. A suit was filed by the respondent for the ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 for the payment of the arrears of rent. It so happened that during the pendency of suit his son failed in the examination and, therefore, a necessity was felt by the plaintiff that his son be rehabilitated in some business and for that purpose an application was filed that the shop in dispute was required for his personal necessity and it was in these circumstances that he applied for the permission to amend his plaint. This prayer of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant on the ground that the fresh cause of action cannot be made the basis for amendment and therefo...
Tag this Judgment!