Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2003)135PLR250
Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner is a tenant on an industrial Plot in Chandigarh. Respondents have filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) in the year 1999. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, a Notification was issued by the Chandigarh Administration which reads as under:GOVERNMENT OF INDIAEXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITYCHANDIGARH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2002(KARTIKA 16, 1924 SAKA)FINANCE DEPARTMENTNOTIFICATION THE 7th NOVEMBER, 2002No. l985-UTFI(l)2002/9055 - in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 read with the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Extension to Chandigarh) Act,1974 (Act No. 54 of 74) and the Govt. of India's notification No.5.0.22(5) dated 8th January, 1950., the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is pleased to direct that the provisions of the aforesaid Act shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD145
C.V. Ramulu, J.1. The only substantial question of law that falls for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the appellate Court was justified in refusing to consider the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 636, General Administration (Accommodation-A) Department, dated 29-12-1983 on the premise that the said issue has already been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in M. Sreeramulu v. Tahera Yousuf Kadri : 2000(3)ALD173 (FB), and in not examining the validity of the said G.O. in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra : AIR1998SC602 .2. A few facts, which are relevant, may be noticed as under:3. The appellant is the defendant/ tenant. Respondent No. 1/landlord filed a suit in O.S. No. 3756 of 1997 on the file of the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property, for arrears of rent and for future mesne profits. It was the case respondent-plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002IIAD(Delhi)261; 95(2002)DLT508; 2002(61)DRJ457; 2002RLR149
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner primarilychallenges the provisions of Sections 4, 6, 9 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 beingviolative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioneralso seeks a direction to the first respondent to rationalise the provisions of DelhiRent Control Act so that the petitioner is assured of receiving reasonable rent for hisproperties let out to the tenants. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a building bearing No. 40-42, Janpath, New Delhi. It is claimed that the said building was completed in the year 1938 at a cost of Rs. 2,50,362.50 and the same was let out to various tenants about 40-50 year ack. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the rent is pegged at a very low level which is highly unjust, unfair and unreasonable. The petitioner claims that his rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21of the Constitution have been abridged by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4563 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P (C) No.26941 of 2011) Dina Nath (D) by Lrs. & Anr. Appellants Versus Subhash Chand Saini & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT T.S. Thakur, J.1. Leave granted.2. I have had the privilege of going through the elaborate Order proposed by my Esteemed Brother J.S. Khehar, J.While I entirely agree with the view that the power to strike out the defence vested in the Court under Section 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is discretionary and ought to be exercised only when the tenant deliberately, contumaciously or negligently fails to deposit the rent due from him, I have, however, not been able to persuade myself to hold that such deliberate, neglect or contumacious failure has been established against the petitioner-tenant in the instant case so as to justify the exceptional step of the Court striking out his defence at the threshold.3. The facts giving rise to the controv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1734
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this batch of petitions, since common questions of law have been raised, these petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 22740/96, 26483 to 26484/96, 27734 to 27741/96, 28843/96, 2960/97, 15299/97 and 16470/96 have called in question the Constitutional validity of Section 2(7)(bb)(iii) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22740/ 96 has called in question the Constitutional validity of Section 2(7) of the Act. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22740/96 at the hearing of these petitions, limited his argument only to the Constitutional validity of Section 2(7)(bb)(iii) and (iv) and the Explanation given to the said provision. 3. The petitioners, in these petitions, are the tenants in respect of either residential or non-residential premises taken on lease bythem from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1980Delhi329
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) The petitioner is a tenant of respondent No. 1. The jurisdiction of the Estate Officer acting under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants), Act, 1971, in issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner, dated 1st March, 1979, is challenged in this writ petition. For the purpose of determining the said jurisdiction a proper construction of the definition of 'Public premises' in section 2(e) 'of the said Act is necessary. Section 2(e) is as follows : '(E)'public premises' means and premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes ( I ) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by or on behalf of (i) any company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty-one per cent, of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government; and (ii) any Corporation (not being a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, or a local auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1999Delhi257; [1998(79)FLR954]
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. In this public interest writ petition the petitioner, Common Cause, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, seeks a direction to the first and the second respondents, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, and the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs respectively, to issue a notification in the official gazette notifying the date on which the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (Act No. 33 of 1995) (for short 'the new Rent Act') shall come into force. The facts lie in a narrow compass. 2. Home is an eternal quest of all mankind. Law which encourages construction of houses to meet one of the basic demands of habitat is the paramount requirement in this country. Realizing this need and voicing its concern regarding the acute shortage of housing, the Supreme Court in Prabhakaran Nair etc., v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , expressed the necessity for a national hou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1997All314
ORDER1. The present revision has been filed by the tenant under S. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 16-8-1985 passed by Sri D. C. Srivastava, IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in S.C.C. Suit No. 117 of 1982.2. By the decree which is impugned in the present revision, respondent's suit for eviction of the applicant from the accommodation and land in suit, which in the common parlance is called 'petrol pump' and for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month w.e.f. 1-7-80 till the date of eviction has been decreed with cost.3. For the purpose of effective disposal of the revision, facts of the case which are not disputed may be briefly stated as follows:--M/s. Kailash Motors (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') under an agreement dated 4-7-1960 let out the property in suit (hereinafter called 'building') to M/s. Standard Vacuum Oil Company on rent of Rs. 500/- per month for a period of ten years with the liberty to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999IIAD(Delhi)689; 78(1999)DLT638
CWP No. 1495/97:Anil Dev Singh, J.1. In this public interest writ petition the petitioner. Common Cause, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, seeks a direction to the first and the second respondents, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, and the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs respectively, to issue a notification in the Official Gazette notifying the date on which the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (Act No. 33 of 1995) (for short 'the new Rent Act') shall come into force. The facts lie in a narrow compass.2. Home is an eternal quest of all mankind. Law which encourages construction of houses to meet one of the basic demands of habitat is the paramount requirement in this country. Realizing this need and voicing its concern regarding the acute shortage of housing, the Supreme Court in Prabhakaran Nair etc. etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others : [1988]1SCR1 , expressed the n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2004]136STC261(P& H)
Hemant Gupta, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 17178, 17188, 17696, 18898, 19073, 19132 and 20031 of 2003, 207 and 4415 of 2004 as all these cases involve similar question of law consequent to enactment of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, w.e.f. April 1, 2003. However, for facility of reference, the facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 17178 of 2003.2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short 'the HGST Act') and is engaged in the business of purchase of paddy. For the assessment year 1998-99, the Assessing Authority framed the assessment under the HGST Act and raised an additional demand on account of purchase tax calculated under Section 6 of the HGST Act. The petitioner filed appeal along with an application under Section 39(5) of the HGST Act for entertaining the appeal without prior payment of tax on account of financial hardship on March 3, 2003. However, before the appeal filed b...
Tag this Judgment!