Court : Supreme Court of India
..... paragraph 54, the court noted that public premises act is a later enactment having been enacted on 23.8.1971, whereas the delhi rent control act, was enacted on 31.12.1958. thereafter the court observed in paragraph 55 as follows:- 55. the rent control act makes a departure from the general law regulating the relationship of landlord and tenant contained in the transfer of property act inasmuch as it makes provision for determination of standard rent, it specifies the grounds on which a landlord can seek ..... (eviction and rent recovery), act 1959 that if the entry into possession had taken place prior to the passing of the act, then obviously the occupant would not be an unauthorized occupant. that apart, mr. nariman submitted that the judgment was essentially on the second part of section 2(g) defining unauthorised occupation . it is, however, material to note that in that case the premises were owned by lic from 19.7.1958, i.e. prior to the delhi rent control act becoming applicable from 9 ..... section 19 of the public premises act, 1971 repeals the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1958. while repealing this predecessor act, section 1(3) of the 1971 act lays down that it shall be deemed to have come into force on the 16th day of september, 1958 except sections 11, 19 and 20 which shall come into force at once (i.e. from 23.8.1971). section 11 deals with offences and penalties. section 19 is the repealing section as stated above, and section 20 is the section .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1988P& H281
V. Ramaswami, C.J.1. In C. W. P. 736 of 1987, the petitioners. who are the tenants of the ground floor portion of H. N. 2135, Sector 38-C. Chandigarh. have filed this writ petition praying for quashing of the Notification No. GSR-1287(E) dated December 15, 1986 by which the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. 1966(Act No. 31 of 1966) have extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act. 1983, (Punjab Act 2 of 1985) as in force in the State of Punjab at the date of the notification subject to the modifications mentioned in the said notification. This Amendment Act 2 of 1985, which was extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh incorporated Section 13-A in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 3 of 1949, which conferred certain special rights in favour of 'specified landlord' which expression means 'a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a buildi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 3766-3767 of 2020 Neena Aneja & Anr. .... Appellants Versus Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. .... Respondent 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J Index A. Background B. Submissions B.1. Submissions of the appellants B.2. Submissions of the respondent C. Position of law on change of forum: An analysis of precedent C.1. Venugopala Reddiar (1943- Federal Court 3 judges) C.2. Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954- Supreme Court 4 judges) C.3. Garikapati (1957- Supreme Court Constitution Bench) C.4. Mohd. Idris (1965- Supreme Court Constitution Bench) C.5. Manujendra Dutt (1966- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.6. New India Assurance (1975- Supreme Court 3 judges) C.7. Maria Cristina (1978- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.8. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (1994- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.9. Sudhir G Angur (2005- Supreme Court 3 judges) C.10. Ramesh Kumar Soni (2013- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.11. Dhadi Sahu (1992- Supreme Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1951]2SCR747
Kania, C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the President of India under article 143 of the Constitution asking the Court's opinion on the three questions submitted for its consideration and report. The three questions are as follows :- '(1) Was section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, or any of the provisions thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent ultra vires the Legislature which passed the said Act ?' 2. Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, mentioned in the question, runs as follows :- 'The Provincial Government may, by notification in the official gazette, extend with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit to the Province of Delhi or any part thereof, any enactment which is in force in any part of British India at the date of such notification.' '(2) Was the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, or any of the provisions thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent ultra vires the Legislature which passed the said Act ?' 3. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC646; [1962]2SCR947
S.K. Das, J. 1. These are 16 appeals which have been heard together. For facility of considering them on merits, it would be convenient to classify them into three categories. In the first category fall Civil Appeals Nos. 172 to 184 of 1958. In the second category are two appeals, Civil Appeals Nos. 185 and 186 of 1958. In the third category falls Civil appeal No. 171 of 1958. The appeals in the first two categories arise out of a judgment in revision rendered by the High Court of Punjab at Simla on August 26, 1954. That decision was reported in British Medical Stores v. L. Bhagirath Mal I.L.R(1955) . 8 Pun 639. The appeal in the third category arises out of a short order of the said High Court dated March 7, 1956, by which it dismissed an application made by the appellant-tenant under Art. 227 of the Constitution. It appears that the order was based on the decision given by the High Court in the first two categories of cases. The appeals in the first two categories have been brought t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori105; 16(1950)CLT249
Das, J.1. This appeal arises in execution of a decree for ejectment obtained by the respondent against the appellant, in respect of a house situated in the town of Cuttack. The respondent is admittedly the owner of the house. The appellant was occupying the house on a monthly tenancy under her. During the time when the House Rent Control Order of 1942 was in force, she obtained from the House Controller, an order dated 15-8 44 exempting her from the operation of B. 4 thereof. On 13-9-44, she gave the tenant a notice, requiring him to vacate the premises by 1-1044 and also calling upon him to pay up the arrear.3 of rent by then due. She filed a suit for ejectment O. S. No. 71/45 on 26-2-1945 and obtained a decree on 17-12-1945. She proceeded to execute the decree by execution case no. 230/46 filed on 30.4.1946 which was adjourned from time to time by arrangement between the parties and was ultimately dismissed for default on 7-5-1917. On 10-5-1917, the decree-holder respondent filed a f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
H.R. Panwar, J.1. All these aforementioned civil second appeals and civil revisions involve identical question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties they are heard and decided together taking the facts of SBCSA No. 139/09 Ram Narayan v. Smt. Asha Devi as a leading case.2. Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these appeals and revisions are that the plaintiff respondent Smt. Asha Devi filed a civil suit against firm Ram Narayan Om Prakash for eviction of the disputed premises after serving notice under Section 106 r/w Section 114(h) of the Transfer of Property Act dated 6.10.2003. The suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.8.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 4, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), against which, one Ram Narayan the appellant herein filed an appeal before Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (for short 'the first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1708; JT1988(3)SC78; 1988(2)SCALE53; (1988)4SCC324; [1988]Supp1SCR493; 1988(2)LC471(SC)
1. I had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment proposed to be delivered by my learned Brother Ranganathan, J. It is, however, necessary to add a few sentences. I was reluctant to take up this matter as it arises out of a decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta. That decision was occasioned by a reference made by the Chief Justice of that High Court on a reference made by me to the Chief Justice sitting singly in that Court. In the High Court I had not expressed any view on the contentions urged. In those circumstances both the parties requested me to take up the matter. It was in those circumstances that I became a party to this judgment. I agree with my learned Brother that the appeal should be dismissed and the order he proposes to make as to costs.2. It is not necessary in view of the facts and circumstances of the case to refer in detail to the reasons. I would, however, make it clear that I prefer the view of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1983P& H356
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.1. Whether any and every order of the Rent Controller appointed under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, against which a party may claim to be aggrieved, would now become appealable under S. 15(2) of the said Act by virtue of Notification No. S. O./71/HA-11/73/S. 15/78. Dated 8th May, 1978, is the somewhat significant question which falls for determination in this case by the Full Bench.2. Though the question aforesaid is primarily legal, yet the facts highlighting the issue deserve a somewhat detailed notice. The respondent-landlord herein had preferred a petition for ejectment under S. 13 of the Act against his tenant from a shop situated on Dev Samaj College Road. Ambala City on the ground of non-payment of rent from 1st of Sept., 1973, to the 31st of Jan., 1979 at a rate of Rs. 800 p. m. amounting to Rupees 52,000. In response thereto whilst contesting the same, the tenant admitted his liability to pa the arrears to the extent to Rs. 9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2010)157PLR345
Surya Kant, J.1. This revision petition is directed by the land' lord whose eviction petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to the Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') filed against the respondent-tenant has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated 22.9.2008.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of residential house No. 1148, Sector 36-C, Chandigarh since 2.3.1994.The petitioner was a member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and retired on superannuation on 31.10.2004 in the rank of Secretary to the Union of India.3. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, in exercise of its powers under Section 2 (5) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'POTA 2004') issued a notification dated 26.5.2005, constituting a Review Committee for completing the review of pending cases under th...
Tag this Judgment!