Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-28-1967
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi299
I.D. Dua, C.J.1. At the time of admission of this revision (C. R. No. 67 of 1967), Shri Sushil Malhtora and Shri R. N. Malhtora appearing in support of the petitioner Sant Ram cited before Andley, J. Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath, 1963 P. L. R. 528, a decision by Falshaw, C. J. And Chuhar Mal v. Balak Ram, 1964 Cur Lj 119 = (1964) 66 PLR 503 (Dulat and Pandit JJ.) in support of their plea for admission of this revision. Shanker. J. felt doubtful of the correctness of the view taken in these two decisions, with the result that while admitting the revision, he directed that the same should be heard after ntoice by a larger Bench. It is in these circumstances that this revision has been placed before us for final disposal.2. The main question arising for settlement by us relates to the interpretation of section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act No. Iii of 1949 (hereafter described as the Punjab Act). The provision of law requiring interpretation may now be reproduced.'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-28-1967
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT284
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) At the time of admission of this revision (C.R. No. 67 of 1967), Shri Sushil Malhtora and Shri R.N. Malhtora appearing in support of the petitioner Sant Ram cited before Andly. J. Panna Lal v. Shri Jagan Nath a decision Falshaw C.J. and Chuhar Mal v. Shri Balak Ran, (Dulat and Pandit JJ.) insupport of their plea for admission of this revision. Shankar.J.felt doubtful of the correctness of the view taken in these two decision, with the result that while admitting the revision he directed that the same should be heard after ntoice by a larger Bench. It is in these circumstances that this revision has been placed before us for final disposal. (2) The main question arising for settlement by us relates to the interpretation of section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Kent Restriction Act No. 1II of 1949 (hereafter described as the PunJab Act). The provision of law requiring interpretation may now be reproduced :- '13.* * * * (3) (a) A landlord may apply to the Contro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-13-1967
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT61
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This revision is directed against the older of the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge dated 13th March 1963 allowing the appeal and revers sing the order of a learned Subordinate Judg 1st Class dated 31st August 1961 whereby the plaintiff's suit. for recovery of Rs. l,080.00 and for ejectment against the defendant was decreed.(2) The suit in the trial Court had been instituted by Smt. Mohan Devi, wife of Shri Gopi Chand, forma pauperis on the allegations that M/s. Arora Provision Stores of Delhi was a tenant under her with regard to a khokha situated at Phatak Mishri Khan, Daryaganj. Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs.30.00 and that no rent had been paid from 1st February, 1951 to 31st January, 1954. On the pleadings, the following three principal issues were settled:-- 1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether any valid ntoice of demand was served upon the defeneant 3 Whether the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-21-1967
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT704
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This second appeal has been preferred under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 195S (hereinafter called the Act) from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24th July, 1967 dismissing the appellant's appeal and affirming the order of the First Additional Rent Controller dated 23rd September, 1966 holding that the landlord bonafide required the premises in question for occupation as residence for himself and for his family members dependent upon him and that he was nto in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation and on his finding, making an order of eviction against the tenant with a direction to vacate the premises Within six months from the date of the order. buth the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal left the parties to bear their own costs. (2) On second appeal, which would nto lie under the statute unless it involved some substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant has, at the very outset, pressed his applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-11-1967
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT590
Hardyal Hardy, J. (1) This second appeal has been filed by a tenant whose eviction has been ordered from a small loom described as a servant quarter and an open court-yard in a (2) The respondents had purchased bungalow No. 49 on Hanuman Road, New Delhi in 1958. At the time of purchase ey gto vacant possession of the entire bungalow except a small room described as a servant quarter and an open Court-yard which was in occupation of the appellant who claimed to have been in possession of the said portion of the property for the last 30 to 35 years, as according to him his father was an employee of the previous owner. The respondents who were Joint owners of the said bungalow with their father (since deceased) started living in the bungalow immediately after it was purchased by them. On the evidence that has been accepted by buth the Courts below, the respondents' family consisted of 18 or 19 members. Although the bungalow appears to be a fairly commodious one, the respondents sought evi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-28-1967
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi142
ORDER(1) The petitioner was granted a license dated 14-12-1959. for import of 'textile fabrics or pieces thereof made of 'silk' only' from soft currency licensing area. It was stated in the license that 'this license is issued subject to the condition that the goods will be utilised only for consumption as materials or accessories in the license holders factory and that no portion thereof will be sold to or permitted to be utilised by any toher party or be pledged with any financier'. The license was made subject to certain conditions and the three relevant conditions were-(1) 'The licensee shall produce a bond duly guaranteed by a scheduled bank for 100 per cent, of the C. I. F. value of imports undertaking to export the finished goods viz: 'textile fabrics or pieces thereof made of silk' after they have been embroidered in India with silver thread to the extent of Rs. 6,556 (2) The licensee shall export within 6 months of the import of the material covered by this license Rs. 6556/-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-1967
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi185; (1969)IILLJ524Del
ORDER(1) Avtar Singh petitioner by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the issuance of a writ to quash the order dated 17th June 1959 of Labour Court Delhi, respondent No. 1, by which Ram Sarup Sharma respondent No. 2 was held entitled to recover Rs. 2,850 from the petitioner and Inder Singh respondent No. 3 as also their firm Inder Singh, Avtar Singh.(2) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and Inder Singh respondent No. 3 were partners in the business of coal and brickkiln under the name style of Inder Singh Avtarsingh with the offices at Delhi and Jharia. Ram Sarup Sharma respondent No. 2 was employed as a head clerk in that firm and worked as such for 16 years from 1st January 1941 to 15th December 1956. It appears that during the later part of 1956 the two partners of above-mentioned firm fell out and on 20th October 1956 they; applied for separate qutoas for themselves. In March 1957 the petitioner brought a suit for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-17-1967
Reported in : ILR1968Delhi309
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This is a second appeal from order, presented under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter called the Act) from the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated 5/12/1967 dismissing the appellant's appeal from the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 4/9/1967 rejecting the application of Suraj Parkash for setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction made on 27/5/1966.(2) It appears that in the proceedings for eviction, 27/5/1966 was fixed for the remaining evidence of the landlord and 2/6/1966 for the evidence of the tenant. On 27/5/1966, neither the tenant nor his counsel appeared at the hearing, with the result that on that very day, an ex-parte order of eviction was made against him. On an application for setting aside the ex-parte order having been made, buth the Courts below, on a consideration of the evidence, have come to the concurrent conclusion that the tenant had nto shown any sufficient cause for his absence on 27/5...
Tag this Judgment!