Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(2)BomCR609
V.V. Kamat, J.1. This petition seeks a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 31st July 1981 made in Case No. Rent 45/80 by the Rent Controller, Goa North Division, respondent No. 4 and order dated 12th September, 1988 made in Eviction Appeal No. 65/81 by the Administrative Tribunal, respondent No.3.2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners are the landlords of a building called Ganga Niwas situated at Panaji, Goa. By a lease agreement executed between the parties on 9th August 1968 the first floor premises consisting of 11 rooms was let out as office accommodation of the Directorate of Agriculture or any other Government Office. The lease stipulated that it shall be for a period of 360 days with effect from 1st May, 1968 to be automatically renewed for equal period in future on payment of the monthly rent of Rs. 1,925/- to the be paid by the 10th of the following month...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC994; (1974)2SCC70; [1974]3SCR152
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals 1756 of 1967. Nos. 1755 and From the judgment and order dated the 4th October, 1966 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 854 and 855 of 1963. V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants. S. K. Dhingra for the respondents. The Judgment of D. G. PALEKAR and V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ. was delivered by Krishna lyer, J. R. S. SARKARIA, J. gave a dissenting, Opinion. KRISHNA IYER, J. These two appeals by the State of Haryana challenge the High Court's approach to an interpretation of two, crucial provisions of a land reforms law, namely, Ss. 10-A and 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (X Of 1953) 1953 (for short called "the Act"). Counsel for the appellants complains; that if the view upheld by the High Court of subordinating S. 10-A to S. 18 were not upset by this Court, large land' holders may extricate their surplus land in excess of the ceiling set, through legal loopholes, such as have been practise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are defendants 1st set in Title Suit No. 87 of 2004, which was filed by plaintiffs-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for declaration of their title and also for declaration that the defendants -petitioners did not acquire any title in the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 25-1-2004 executed by opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 (defendants 2nd set) in favour of these petitioners.2. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 21-12-2004 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Sub-Judge-III, Patna City, had rejected their petition for accepting written statement filed on their behalf in the Court below on 15-10-2004, beyond the period of ninety days as prescribed under Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity).3. The short fact of this case is that the above mentioned title suit was filed by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 48(1992)DLT567
Santosh Dnggal, J.(1) The appellants in this second appeal are two daughters, now married, of the original tenant, Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, who died on 28th May 1982. (2) A brief resume of the facts reveals that the respondents, who are owners/landlords of the premises being shop No. 23/10, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, filed an eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent in March 1985, impleading the widow and three sons of the deceased tenant as respondents. The said respondents contested the matter, but after hearing the parties and taking note of the pleadings, an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') was passed. Pursuant to non-compliance of the order, on the part of the respondents, passed under Section 15(1) of the Act, an order u/Section 15(7) striking out the defense of the respondents was passed on 19.3.1986, followed by an eviction order, on the ground of non-payment of rent, passed on 21.4.1986. (3) The appeal filed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC678; (1989)4SCC550; [1989]Supp1SCR8
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is a tenants' appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad. The question involved in this appeal, as is usual, in all these cases, is what is just in the circumstances and events that have happened.2. The premises in question is in the village and P.O. Dhampur in the District of Bijnor in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The suit was filed in 1967. The suit for the eviction of the appellants was filed on the ground that tenants had made material alteration in the property and as such became liable for ejectment in view of Section 3(1)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). The said Section 3 in the said provision enjoins that no suit without the permission of the District Magistrate shall be filed in any civil court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation, except on one or more of the grounds enumerated therein and Cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1962Mad450
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.(1) This appeal which arises out of an order returning an application for probate of a Will, for presentation to the proper court has been placed before the Full Bench, by reason of a conflict between the decisions. reported in Karthiruma Goundan v. Rangammal, ILR 55 Mad 701: AIR 1932 Mad 456 and P. J. Francis v. P. J. Varghese : (1956)2MLJ288 . The facts relevant for and giving rise to this appeal are: The appellant claiming as an executor under an alleged will of one P.W. Subbaraya Reddiar who died on 1-7-1957, first applied for the grant of pro-bate of the will in the Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The application was opposed by the daughter of the deceased who contested the genuineness of the will and who inter alia denied the jurisdiction of the Sub Court to dispose of a contentious application for probate. To appreciate the latter objection, it is necessary to refer to two notifications conferring jurisdiction on the Sub Court to grant probate of a will. They ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... delhi rent control (amendment) act, 1988 was stated as under: the delhi rent control act, 1958 (59 of 1958) which came into effect on 9th february, 1959, provides for control of rents and lodging houses and for the lease of vacant premises to the government within the union territory of delhi. 2. for quite sometime, there have been demands from the associations of house-owners as well as tenants for amendment of delhi rent control act, 1958 ..... repealed. the central act was extended to the union territory of delhi as amended by the punjab acts 4/1939.54. though the court fees act 1870 was applicable to the whole of british india, the devolution act 1920 (act xxxviii of 1920) empowered the provinces/ states to amend the court fees act, 1870 while making it applicable to the concerned state/province. the devolution act, 1920 has since been repealed by the repealing act, 1938 (act 1 of 1938). (189th report of the law commission of india at pp.42) 55. because of section 292 of the government of india act ..... of 531 rights standards. (emphasis by us) 604. the supreme court of the united states, for example, has held that court fees that limit access to those ..... component of meaningful access to justice is now firmly entrenched in section 12 of the legal services authorities act, 1987 which provides that legal aid shall be available ..... the claim which has not been awarded. there is no logic or basis for fixation of the court fee based on the amount awarded. in fact such prescription supports the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... delhi rent control (amendment) act, 1988 was stated as under: the delhi rent control act, 1958 (59 of 1958) which came into effect on 9th february, 1959, provides for control of rents and lodging houses and for the lease of vacant premises to the government within the union territory of delhi. 2. for quite sometime, there have been demands from the associations of house-owners as well as tenants for amendment of delhi rent control act, 1958 ..... repealed. the central act was extended to the union territory of delhi as amended by the punjab acts 4/1939.54. though the court fees act 1870 was applicable to the whole of british india, the devolution act 1920 (act xxxviii of 1920) empowered the provinces/ states to amend the court fees act, 1870 while making it applicable to the concerned state/province. the devolution act, 1920 has since been repealed by the repealing act, 1938 (act 1 of 1938). (189th report of the law commission of india at pp.42) 55. because of section 292 of the government of india act ..... of 531 rights standards. (emphasis by us) 604. the supreme court of the united states, for example, has held that court fees that limit access to those ..... component of meaningful access to justice is now firmly entrenched in section 12 of the legal services authorities act, 1987 which provides that legal aid shall be available ..... the claim which has not been awarded. there is no logic or basis for fixation of the court fee based on the amount awarded. in fact such prescription supports the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 62(1996)DLT313
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) I had the advantage of reading the opinion of my learned Brother K. Ramamoorthy. I am in respectful agreement with the conclusions reached by brother Ramamoorthy that all the appeals and writ petitions deserve dismissal. In his judgment Brother Ramamoorthy has dealt with various aspects of the matter in great detail as also the decisions cited before us. Considering, however, the gravity of unauthorised construction and misuse and numerous cases which come up before Courts seeking injunction relating to such constructions, I would notice few salient facts of these cases. (2) The unauthorised construction and unauthorised user of residential building for commercial purposes in Delhi has gained alarming proportions and crossed all limits. At the very outset I may state that these activities are against the interests of the Society at large and need to be dealt with firmly. (3) The common questions of fact and law are involved in these batch of writ petitions and app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR128; 2005(1)BomCR839; 2005(1)MhLj1097
D.G. Karnik, J.1. The question of law that arise for determination in this Civil Revision Application is:(i) Whether during the pendency of a suit filed by a landlord for eviction of a tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the Bombay Rent Act) the landlord can file a second suit for eviction under the general law (Transfer of Property Act, 1882) against a tenant who has ceased to have protection of a Rent Act by reason of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ?The brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid questions are stated below:2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit) against the applicant (hereinafter also referred to as the tenant) for eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground that he required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his own use and occupation and that the tenant was a defaulter in payme...
Tag this Judgment!