Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1979P& H102
D.S. Tewatia, J.1. In these three writ petitions, namely, Civil Writs Nos. 1462, 1507 and 1518 of 1976, as also in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2977 of 19771 common questions of law and facts, excepting the names of the parties and the places where they carry on their business, are involved and, therefore, we propose a common judgment for them. For the purpose of reference the facts and assertions stated in Civil Writ No. 1462 of 1976 and the respondent's return thereto shall be taken notice of wherever found necessary. 2. The petitioners are engaged in the business of selling drugs (medicinal preparations) and cosmetics (toilet preparations), alcoholic and non-alcoholic, in the State of Punjab under licences issued under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act No. 23 of 1940, and the rules framed thereunder, as amended from time to time. (hereinafter called the 'Drugs Act'). 3. The petitioners, besides impugning Notification No. S. O. 2/P, A. I/14/ 3/76, dated 6-2-1976, Annexure P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC272; [1961]1SCR591
Kapur, J. 1. This appeal has little substance and must, therefore, be dismissed. The appellants are the decree-holders and the respondent is the judgment debtor. On February 3, 1941, by a registered deed the father of the appellants leased to the respondent the house in dispute for a period of 10 years with an option of renewal for further periods for as long as the respondent wanted. This house was used by the respondent for his hotel. 2. The father died on January 25, 1945. On December 21, 1945, the appellants filed a suit for a declaration that the deed of lease of February 3, 1941, executed by their farther was not for legal necessity or for the benefit of the family, that the alienation was not binding on them and the option of renewal under the lease was void and unenforceable on account of uncertainty. The appellants further prayed for delivery of possession and for a decree for a sum of Rs. 2,655 as past mesne profits and future mesne profits at Rs. 250 per mensem as from Decem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1971RLR81
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of similar Writ Petitions Nos. 80,133 to 137 and 176 of 1971. It will be sufficient to set out the facts in C.Ws 79 & 80 of 1971. The only point of distinction between C.Ws 79 & 80 of 1971 and the rest is that in C.Ws 79 & 80 alone there is the additional fact of a notice having been issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 6-1-1971 under section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act asking the persons concerned to show cause why the rateable value should not be enhanced as stated in that notice for 1970-71. Even before the expiry of the dates mentioned in the said notices for showing cause the writ Petitions 79 & 80/71 were filed on 18-1-1971. The rest were filed some time later. (2) The petitioner in C.W. 79/71 is the owner of building bearing Municipal No. 35 Faiz Bazar, Delhi and the petitioner in C.W. 80/71 is a joint owner of building bearing Municipal No. 36 Faiz Bazar, Delhi. Both the buildings. Numbers 35 and 36, wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 65(1997)DLT44
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 227 praying for setting aside and quashing of the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in appeal under Section 38 of the Rent Control Act on 18.5.1996. Vide that order, the Rent Control Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner disallowing his prayer for amendment of the written statement by withdrawing the admission already made on record. In this case, one Raj Nath Jasrai had let out the premises in his capacity as the owner thereof to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said property was sold by the said Raj Nath Jasrai in favor of the petitioner on 19.12.1991. This fact is admitted by the petitioner in para 3(b) of reply on merits in his written statement filed before the Additional Rent Controller. Later on when the matter was ripe for evidence, the petitioner moved the Additional Rent Controller for leave to amend the written statement whereby the said admission was sought to be withdra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1975Delhi628
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act' which came up before us on a reference by the learned Single Judge of this Court, raises certain questions with regard to the extent to which the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act would govern the relationship of landlord and tenant in the Union Territory of Delhi before the latter Act was extended to the said territory and the further question whether even after its extension, its operation is excluded by the provisions of the Act in relation to tenancies, whether contractual or statutory, which are covered by the Act.(2) The facts and circumstances leading to the appeal may be briefly stated. The premises in dispute were let out with effect from May 1, 1954 by a rent note, Ex. AW3/1, of May 19, 1954 by the first respondent the owner thereof, to the appellant. According to the rent note 'the tenancy was for a period of 'less than one year,' there ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1962P& H256
Mahajan, J.(1) This matter originally came up before me and in view of the importance of the question. I referred it to a Division Bench. The matter was then placed before a Division Bench consisting of Dua J. and myself. In view of certain decisions of this Court under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, the matter was then reference to a Full Bench and that is how the matter has been placed before us today.(2) The only question that requires determination depends on the true construction of Section 13(2) (i) of the Estate Punjab Urban Rent Registration Act (III of 1949)--hereinafter to be referred to as the Act--or in other words the question that requires determination is whether a tenant who is sought to be ejected because he is in arrears of rent can avoid ejectment by only tendering the arrears that are within the period of limitation or has he to tender all the arrears of rent whether they are within or outside the period of limitation?(3) The facts of the present case n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC187; 2007(2)BLJR3030; 2007(6)BomCR801; JT2007(11)SC484; (2008)1MLJ51(SC); 2007(11)SCALE630; (2007)8SCC559
ORDER BY THIS COURT4. On February 21, 2005, notice was issued by this Court. Status quo as regards possession was ordered to be maintained. On April 18, 2005, leave was granted. Pending appeal, stay of dispossession was continued subject to the tenant depositing a sum of Rs. twenty four lakhs with the Registry of the Court within eight weeks which was allowed to be withdrawn by the landlord without furnishing security. The matter was ordered to be placed for final hearing and that is how the matter is before us.SUBMISSIONS5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.6. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant- tenant contended that all the courts committed an error of law and of jurisdiction in passing the decree of eviction against the tenant. He submitted that the suit filed by the landlord was not maintainable and it ought to have been dismissed by the courts below. He also submitted that the question as to constitutional validity of clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1973CriLJ512; ILR1972Delhi189
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) The short question for determination as contained in the referring order is as to whether the Controller functioning under the provisions of Act 59 of 1958 is a Court within the meaning of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This judgment will, along with the reference dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 45 of 1971.(2) The petitioner has moved this court under section 561(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings pending against him before respondent No. 2. The allegations in the petition are that having obtained the permission of the competent authority the petitioner-landlord applied for the eviction of his tenant Hari Chand and obtained the eviction order dated the 4th of December, 1968, against which the appeal taken to the Rent Control Tribunal was dismissed on the 9th of February, 1970. He then took out execution proceedings. Hem Chand, respondent No. I to this petition along with hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1979Delhi26; 13(1977)DLT5; 1978RLR558
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This appeal has been filed by Miss Nirmal Chaudhary against the order dated 2nd August, 1977, passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the certified copy of the order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller dated 31-1-1975 which was impugned before it by way of appeal from the said order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller. (2) The learned Addl. Rent Controller had passed an order for ejectment dated 30-1-1976 against the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent and held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) of the said Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). (3) Since the order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller contemplated immediate eviction of the appellant, the appellant applied for certified copy of that order by an urgent application on 2-2-1976. The copy was not ready and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2002Delhi509; 100(2002)DLT259
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Constitutionality of a part of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called for the sake of brevity 'the said Act' for short) is in question in these writ petitions. BACKGROUND FACTS :-2. The petitioners are owners of the premises in question. The said premises had originally been leased out to Delhi Improvement Trust by an Indenture dated 18th August 1953. The said leasehold rights were purchased by the petitioner in 1973.Clause 4(c) of the said Indenture reads thus:'4(c) The lessee shall not use the said land and building that may be erected thereon during the said terms for any other purpose than for purpose of a residential house, without the consent in writing of the Lesser.'3. The petitioner asserted that the second respondent/tenant had not been using the premises for residential purposes and the user had been permitted by the lesser in terms of the lease deed. She filed an application for eviction of the respondent No.2 from the t...
Tag this Judgment!