Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-05-1965
Reported in : AIR1966SC1003; [1966]2SCR544
Sarkar, J. 1. This appeal was filed with special leave of this Court granted on August 14, 1964. Various interesting questions of law were sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant but in our view they do not arise at this stage. The appeal must be confined to the points decided in the courts below. 2. The case appears to us to be somewhat out of the ordinary. One Mehtab Singh was the owner of a certain building known as Akbar Building, situate in Mohalla Ganda Nala, Gali Rajan, Delhi. The appellant was a tenant under him in respect of certain accommodation in the building. On June 3, 1955, Mehtab Singh filed a suit under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 against the appellant for his ejectment. On October 11, 1956 that suit was decreed. The appellant filed an appeal against that decree which, however, was dismissed on March 27, 1957. He thereafter moved the High Court of Punjab in revision but here also he was unsuccessful. The precise date of the dismissal of the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-03-1965
Reported in : AIR1965SC1514; 1965(0)KLT633(SC); [1965]2SCR868
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for issuing an appropriate writ to quash the order and notification date October 3, 1963, issued by the respondent and to restrain it from interfering with the petitioner's right in the property comprised in survey Nos. 646 to 650 in Trivendrum City. 2. Kizhakke Kottaram (i.e., Eastern Palace), 2 acres and 57 cents. in extent, comprised in survey Nos. 646 to 650 and consisting of land, trees, buildings, out-houses, the surrounding well on all sides, gates and all appurtenants, in the City of Trivendrum originally belonged to His Highness the Maharaja of Travancore. Under a sale deed dated January 7, 1959, the Maharaja sold the same to the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that the eastern wall now in dispute is a portion of the Palace wall and is situate in survey Nos. 646 to 650 and that since the purchase he has been in possession of the same. On October 3, 1963, the Government of Kerala passed an order, G.O. (MS...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-05-1965
Reported in : AIR1966AP51
Ekbote, J. 1. The question which must essentially he answered in this enquiry is whether Section 32(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 15 ot 1960 thereinafter called the Act) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The material facts are that the petitioner instituted a suit, O.S. 19/63 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabed, for a declaration that he is the tenant within the meaning of Section 2 (ii) of the Act and therefore is entitled to the protection afforded there under. The respondent who is the landlord instituted O.S. No. 20/0.3 against the petitioner before the same Court for possession of the suit property contending that us the suit building was constructed in 1960 it is exempted from the operation of the Act. The Chief Judge framed the following common issue in both the suits:'Whether Section 32(b) of the Act is unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative in view of the provisions of Article 14 and Artic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-14-1965
Reported in : AIR1966Ker192
Velu Pillai, J.1. In view of the question arising for decision, it is not necessary to relate all the facts of this ancient litigation. The appeal arises in execution of a decree which was obtained by the appellant, mortgagee of certain properties, on the basis of a lease back to the mortgagor, for recovery of possession with arrears of rent and future rent. The decree was passed on the 10th March, 1928 under the Travancore Civil Procedure Code. The question which arises for decision is whether the appellant can recover future interest, that is interest subsequent to the date of the decree, without any limit as under Section 34(1) of the Indian Civil Procedure Code or only subject to the limit imposed by Section 31(8) of the Travancore Civil Procedure Code. Section 81(1), (2) and (3) of the latter may be usefully quoted and are as follows:(1) In suits for money, no Court shall, in respect of the period antecedent to the insti-tution of the suit, allow in its decree a higher rate of int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-04-1965
Reported in : AIR1967Mad369
(1) Appeal 26 of 1964: This appeal by the defendants turns on enforceability against the third defendant, a Muslim, minor, of an agreement which he had entered into on 12-2-1961 with the respondent to lease out premises No. 34 General Patters Road, Madras after reconstruction and put him back in possession thereof. The premises were purchased in the name of the minor in 1954. The respondent continued to be a tenant of a major portion of the premises even after the purchase. In November 1960, on behalf of the minor a notice to quit the premises was served on the respondent on the ground that the existing structure had to be pulled down and a new building raised with ground and first floors and that a plan of the proposed construction had already been sanctioned by the Corporation. The respondent replied on 22-11-1960 stating that there had been an oral discussion on the matter between him and the minor's father, the second defendant, and that it was agreed that the respondent might tem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-16-1965
Reported in : AIR1966AP137; 1966CriLJ512
ORDERAnantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner gave a complaint to the Police. After investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur tried the accused. Ultimately, he convicted the accused and sentenced him. At the trial, the petitioner complainant deposed as P.W. 1. The accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Guntur and were completely acquitted by him. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition in this court praying for revision of the lower appellate Court's judgment of acquittal. Along with the revision petition, he filed a certified copy of the judgment of the lower appellate court but he did not file a certified copy of the judgment of the trial court. When the office required him to file a certified copy duly stamped, he came forward with a contention that he was not bound to furnish a certified copy. Therefore, the office put up the matter before me for hearing.2. The petitioner produced a copy of the trial court's...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-09-1965
Reported in : AIR1966Cal488,69CWN921
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This Rule, which was obtained inter alia under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, raises some questions of importance. The points, are more or less pf first impression and require careful consideration, depending, inter alia, as they do, on the construction of the relevant statutes.2. The Rule was obtained under the following circumstances: The petitioner was the defendant in Commercial Suit No. 304 of 1961 of the ThirdBench of the local City Civil Court, broughtby the plaintiff opposite party for recovery ofRs. 2,678-03 np. as price of goods sold andinterest. That suit was decreed by the learnedtrial Judge on December 23, 1963. The decree;however, was actually signed on January 17,1964. An application for copies of the judgmentand the decree appears to have been made oilJanuary 21, 1964, and the copies were madeready and taken delivery of on February 22,1964. On the next day, which was a Sunday,the petitioner saw the learned Advocate,Sri Asoke Kumar Sengupta, with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-08-1965
Reported in : [1965]2SCR705
Wanchoo, J. 1. These two appeals by special leave from two judgments of the Punjab High Court raise a common question with respect to the application of the first proviso to section 57(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, No. 59 of 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the present Act). They arise from decisions of two learned Single Judges in revision applications under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, No. 38 of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 1952 Act.) In one of them (C.A. 879) the learned Judge has held that in view of the first proviso to section 57(2), a decree for ejectment against the tenant could not be passed. In the other appeal (No. 121), the other learned Judge has held that the tenant is liable to ejectment in spite of the first proviso to section 57(2) of the present Act. It will thus be seen that the two decisions are contradictory and raise the question as when the first proviso to section 57(2) precisely applies to facts similar to the facts in the presents two app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-12-1965
Reported in : AIR1966SC108; 1966CriLJ93; [1965]3SCR341
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 151 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 27, 1962 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1137 or 1961. Gopal Singh, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. The Judgment of Wanchoo and Sikri JJ. was delivered by Wanchoo J. Mudholkar J. delivered a dissenting opinion. Wanchoo, J. This appeal by special leave raises the question of the interpretation of s. 259 of the Cantonments Act, No. 11 of 1924, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent was a tenant of the appellant. An application was made by the Cantonment Executive Officer, Ambala, on January 7, 1960, for realisation of a sum of Rs. 649.50 from the respondent under s. 259 of the Act on the ground that the amount was due as arrears of rent on the basis of a lease in favour of the respondent. The respondent apparently questioned the jurisdiction of the magistrate to realise the amount. The magistrate held that he had j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-11-1965
Reported in : AIR1966SC573; [1966]2SCR158
Shah, J.1. House No. 11, Kaiserbagh at Lucknow, was since 1918 in the occupation of one Chowdhry Akbar Hussain. After the partition of India, Chowdhry Akbar Hussain migrated to Pakistan. By order dated October 12, 1949 the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Lucknow, in exercise of power 'under s. 6 of the U.P. Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance 1 of 1949 as continued in force by Central Ordinances 12 and 20 of 1949' declared No. 11, Kaiserbagh as 'evacuee property'. No claim was preference by any person in pursuance of this notification, and management of the property continued with the Custodian of Evacuee Property. Acting under s. 12 off the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 44 of 1954, the Central Government by a notification dated May 27, 1955 acquired the property for the Central pool constituted under that Act. On June 7, 1957 the property was put up for sale by public auction and was purchased by one Ram Chand Kohli. 2. On September 27, 1961 th...
Tag this Judgment!