Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1981Cal428
ORDERDipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The plaintiff is the Receiver appointed in Suit No. 1683 of 1964 (Sitaram Dehi v. Basdeo Dehi & Ors.) inter alia, over premises No. 13, Pretoria Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises).2. M/s. Loch Lomond Lodge (P) Ltd., the defendant, was a monthly tenant of the said premise's at a rent of Rs. 885.50 per month payable according to the English Calendar.3. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against the defendant for eviction on the grounds of wrongful addition and alteration to the premises and wrongful sub-letting. The plaintiff also claims mesne profits and damages.4. The plaintiff alleges that since the institution of this suit a number of challans in respect of rent deposited by the defendant have not been received from the Rent Controller Calcutta between January 1968 till October 1972 and that the defendant has not also made any deposit of rent in this Court -- during the said period.5. It is contended that the deposits of ren...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991MP316; 1991(0)MPLJ418
Faizanuddin, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Madhya Pradesh High Court by the defendants has been directed against the orders passed on 29-6-1990 to 11-7-1990 by the learned single Judge of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 227 of 1990.2. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal may be stated thus: The Indian Olympic Association/respondent No. 3, herein, is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It consists of various Federations which are affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association. The Management of the Indian Olympic Association (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.O.A.') is controlled by a duly elected Executive Council in accordance with rules for a term of 4 years. A Special General Meeting may be summoned at any time by the President of I.O.A. at his discretion or it is convened on a written requisition signed by the Presidents and Secretaries of not less than 15 Member-Units within one month from the date of recei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by petitioner-tenant, is to the order dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure P1), whereby the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Gurgaon has dismissed the two applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as the applications had been filed on the ground that the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, had been made applicable to the area where the suit property is situated w.e.f. 02.06.2008 and as such, the same could not effect the litigation already initiated. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mansoor Khan Vs. Moti Ram Harbhajan Kharat AIR 2002 SC 2396. An earlier application had also been dismissed on 05.08.2010 and the proposed amendment in the preliminary objection No.5 could not be allowed as it would lead to framing of a new case and controvert the admission made in para No.6 of the amended written statement. The respondent-landlady filed a civil suit on 25.07.2007 (Annexure P9) for poss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1977Cal199,(1977)1CompLJ175(Cal),82CWN252
M.N. Roy, J.1. This appeal from appellate decree is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 30, 1970, made in Title Appeal No. 337 of 1970 by Shri S. K. Dutta. Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore, affirming thereby the judgment and decree dated January 30, 1970, made in Title Suit No. 234 of 1968, by Shri D. K, Panda, Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore.2. The plaintiff-respondent, being the owner of the premises in suit brought the Title Suit in question against the defendant appellant for recovery of khas possession by eviction and for mesne profits and also for compensation for damages Caused to the same. It was alleged that the defendant appellant was a tenant in respect of two bed rooms, one privy and one verandah at a monthly rent of Rupees 35/-, payable according to English calendar month. It was contended that the tenant defendant broke open a portion of the wall in between the bed rooms of his tenancy, made a hole in the wall of the privy and broke other portion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2088; 2002(2)KarLJ292
Kumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. All the appellants are tenants except the appellant in W.A. No. 62 of 1999 is a Charitable Trust. However, all the appellants challenge the constitutional validity of Section 2(7)(b)(iii) and (iv) and the Explanation thereto of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 17th of December, 1997 disposed of a batch of writ petitions upholding the constitutional validity of the impugned sections.3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge these writ appeals have been filed.4. These writ appeals appear to be an exercise in futility since the introduction of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The Rent Act received the assent of the President on 22nd day of November, 2001 (Karnataka Act No. 34 of 2001). It was published in the Gazette on 27th of November, 2001 and came into force by a Notification dated 5-12-2001.5. Section 70 of the Rent Act repeals the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1961), Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 13(1977)DLT323
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J. (1) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners, Shri Muni Lal Vohra and Shri Hira Lal Vohra, praying that the order (Annexure A.6), dated 19th June, 1974, whereby the Assistant Assessor and Collector, Delhi Municipal Corporation, enhanced the rateable value of the property No. 2537/X, known was RamJas Building, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, from Rs. 44,010 to Rs. 82,350 as well as the order of Shri O. P. Singla, Additional District, Judge, Delhi, dated 23rd April, 1976, upholding on appeal the aforesaid order of the Assistant Assessor and Collector be quashed. The Delhi Municipal Corporation has been imp leaded as the first respondent and Shri O. P. Singia has been imp leaded as the second respondent.(2) The petitioners are the owners of the aforesaid Ramjas Building situated on Plot No. Ii, Block No. Iv, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, which bears the Municipal No. 2537/X. The petitioners let out the entire ground floor of the building with attached bath and lav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1973RLR627
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This is an appeal by the tenant against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 13.10.72 by which he set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 7-10-1969 and directed eviction of the appellant. (2) The respondent landlady on April 17, 1965 filed an application under clause (g) of Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that the premises in dispute were required bonafide by the landlady for the purpose of re-building and such re-building could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. It was also alleged that the proposed reconstruction would not radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let and that the premises in dispute were in a dilapidated condition and it was in the public interest that the premises be reconstructed. It was further alleged that the reconstruction was necessary to meet the requirement of the petitioner and her fam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 155(2008)DLT440
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A lease deed was executed on 24.10.1996 by Smt. Shakun Vohra, the owner in favour of Ms. Rohini Varshnei as tenant (appellant herein) in respect of second floor of House No. G-72, 2nd Floor, Masjid Moth, Residential Scheme, New Delhi consisting of two rooms with one attached bathroom, kitchen, covered verandah, open terrace and servant's bathroom. The lease provided for a rent of Rs. 3,500/-per month for the premises and the fittings and fixtures. The tenant was also liable to pay Rs. 50/- as water charges and electricity charges had to be paid according to the bills received from the authorities.2. Smt. Shakun Vohra executed a registered sale deed dated 21.11.2001 in favour of Sh. R.B. Singh (respondent herein) in respect of the said second floor with terrace rights along with undivided, impartible and individual share in the plot measuring 180 square metres.3. The respondent served a notice through Counsel on the appellant dated 09.05.2002 informing her about...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 203 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 O R D E R 1. The revision petitioner is the respondent/tenant in the RCP No. 45/2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The respondents herein, who are landlords of the revision petitioner, instituted the above petition seeking an order of eviction in respect of the petition schedule building under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As per the pleadings in the petition and by the judgment impugned, it is revealed that a building facing east towards the Chittur Road is owned by the respondents. A portion in the upstairs, which is the petition schedule building was let out to the revision petitioner and he had been occupying the same as a lessee. On the southern side of the petition schedule building and towards the back side, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP70
Venkatesam, J.1. The only point for determination in this S.R. is, whether a revi-sion petition filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, XV of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is barred by limitation if not filed within 90 days from the date of the order as laid down by Role 41-A (2) of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). If that rule governs the case, the revision petition is barred by limitation and the petitioner should get the delay condoned on sufficient cause being shown. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the rule has no application to the case as it is governed by Section 22 of the Act, according to which the revision petition could be filed at any time.2. Considering the importance of the question raised, one of us (Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.) directed that the matter should be posted before a Bench. At our request, Sri G. Venkatarama Sastr...
Tag this Judgment!