Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-03-1968
Reported in : ILR1969Delhi127
Inder Dev Dua, J.(1) This appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is directed against an order of remand made by the learned Rent Control Tribunal on 12-3-1968 after allowing the appeal of Shri Hans Raj Taneja and Smt. Raj Dulari from the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 14/9/1967 dismissing their application for eviction of the tenant who is the appellant in this Court. The learned Rent Controller disallowed the plea of a bona fide requirement on the ground that the application for eviction did nto contain an averment or allegation that the landlords seeking ejectment for their bona fide requirements, were the owners of the premises in question. I need nto go into the toher ground on which also the eviction order was claimed and which was repelled. (2) On appeal, the learned Rent Control Tribunal, following a decision of this Court, in which it was observed that the statutory requirement of the petitioner being the owner of the premises from which evicti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-26-1968
Reported in : AIR1969P& H110
R.S. Narula, J.1. The circumstances in which the following three question of law have been referred to this Full Bench at the instance of P. C. Pandit, J. are given in substantial details in the order of reference passed by the learned Single judge, on July 23, 1968, and need not be recapitulated any detail:-(i) whether an ejectment application under section 13 of the East Punjab urban Rent restriction Act (3 of 1949) can be field without the prior issue of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882; (ii) Whether the objection regarding non-issue of a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of property Act can be waived by the tenant; and (iii) whether objection as to the validity of the notice can be waived by a tenant in a case in which a defective notice has been issued. 2. The admitted facts giving rise to this reference are that the respondent (hereinafter called the landlord) gave one week's notice of ejectment to the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-24-1968
Reported in : AIR1969P& H270
R.S. Narula, J.1. Since two common questions of law arise in all these three petitions for revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (East Punjab Act No. 3 of 1949), hereinafter called 'the Act' it would be convenient to dispose of all of them together by a common judgment. The first of the questions relates to the interpretation and scope of sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. The second question, which has been raised for the first time before us and in the nature of things could not have been raised any earlier, is as to the effect of the death of a successful landlord pending a revision petition against an order for ejectment passed in his favour on the groud of personal requirements.2. The three cases arise out of three separate applications for the ejectment filled by Bakhshi Ram (original respondent in these petitions-since deceased - and now represented by his widow and adopted son, to whom I will ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-27-1968
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT296
S.N. Andley, J.(1) This is a civil revision under sub-section (5) of saction 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1849 (Act 111 of 1949) against the judgment dated August 9, 1968, of the Appellate Authority constituted under sub-section (1) (a) of the said section of the said Act. The appellate Authority who is the District Judge, Simla District, Simla, allowed the application of the respondent herein which had been filed in the Court of the Rent Controller under section 13(3) (a)(i) of the said Act for the eviction of the petitioner herein from the top floor of the building known as North Brook Terrace, The Mall, Simla. (2) The undisputed facts are that the third, fourth a fifth floors of the North Brook Terrace were on tenancy with the respondent society. The fifth floor of the building opens on the Mall Road and the society was running a coffee house on this floor. The fourth and third floors were being utilized by the society as its kitchen and godown. The sixth floor w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-17-1968
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi319; 1969CriLJ1380; 5(1969)DLT526
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) Rent Control Appeal No. 772 of 1966 filed by Ram Dass P. Chugani was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, on 24th November, 1966. The Tribunal received a letter dated 29th November, 1966, from Shri Chugani on 5th December, 1966, by registered post. The said letter has been admitted by Shri Chugani. The main grievance made by Shri Chugani in the said letter against the Tribunal is about his nto having been properly heard. On the basis of that letter I would have been disinclined to take action for contempt and Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the State, also agreed that there was ntohing very objectionable in the said letter. It appears from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dated 8th February, 1967, that the Tribunal considered that the writing of that letter as an indiscreet act. It was indiscreet in the sense that no person is entitled to enter into private correspondence with a Judge about any cause or matter. Anyhow, as the Tribunal says,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-10-1968
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT90
I.D. Dua, J. (1) Shri Prem Raj has preferred this revision under section 35 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (No. 38 of 1952) against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge Its Class dated 20th April 1961 dismissing the present petitioner's application under section 15 of the aforesaid Act. (2) It appears that in proceedings for ejectment against the present petitioner from the shop in question an eviction decree was made on 6th August, 1956 on the ground that the shop was required for re. building. The landlord undertook to restore back the possession of the shop in question. The shop to be restored was marked 'B' showa in the plan attached with the plaint in eviction proceedings. According to the present petitioner against whom order of eviction was made he delivered the possession o f the shop in his occupation on 15th September 1956 and his grievance which he desires to be redressed in the present proceedings is restoration of possession of the newly built shop. (3) This claim was c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-27-1968
Reported in : (1969)71BOMLR500; 1967MhLJ9
Patel, J.1. These three petitions are filed by rice millers and raise important questions regarding the validity of the Maharashtra Scheduled Foodgrains (Stocks Declaration and Procurement and Disposal, Acquisition, Transport and Price Control) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1966) and the action taken by the State Government thereunder. This Order was promulgated under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as amended from time to time. Shortly stated, by this Order the Government prohibited all private dealings in certain kinds of foodgrains and made it compulsory to be sold to the Government or its agent. The said Order contains 20 clauses and, as now finalised, it applies to paddy and rice, Jowar, Nagli, Pohas and Kurmuras. Clause 3 of the said Order requires periodical declarations of stocks by every person who holds more than ten quintals of the scheduled foodgrains. Clause 4 gives power to the Collector or any officer authorised by him to call for declaration ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-08-1968
Reported in : AIR1969MP130; 1968MPLJ251
Bhave, J. 1. Smt. Thakurain Dulaiya, the plaintiff-appellant, is the owner ofHouse No. 828, Lordganj, Jabalpur, and the respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1) is the tenant thereof at the monthly rent of Rs. 120/-. The plaintiff filed the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, for ejectment on various grounds including the ground that the defendant No. 1 had sub-let part of the premises to the defendants 2 and 3 and that the subletting being unlawful she was entitled to eject the defendants under Section 12(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The defendant No. 3 vacated the premises during the pendency of the suit. The defence of the defendants 1 and 2 was that the part of the premises was sublet to the defendant No. 2 at a tripartite contract between the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2, arrived at between the parties at Mauranipur in April 1955. It was not disputed that the contract was oral; but the submission was that it being a tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-22-1968
Reported in : AIR1969P& H26
R.S. Narula, J.1. This petition for revision of the order of Shri Surinder Singh Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) District Judge Jullundur upholding the order of Shri D.S. Controller. Jullundur dated November 8 1967 directing the eviction of Sawaraj Pal petitioner under section 13(2) of the Act was admitted to a Division Bench by the order of my Lord the Chief Justice dated April 29, 1968 and was directed to be set down for hearing as the first case on May 6, 1968 as Janak Raj respondent accepted service of notice of the petition at the Motion stage and execution of the order for eviction was stayed till the date of hearing of the revision petition.2. In order to appreciate all the points that have been urged before us, it appears to be necessary to survey the somewhat lengthy history of this case leading to the filling of this revision petition, though the ultimate points involved in the case do not appear to be at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-19-1968
Reported in : AIR1969Bom348; (1968)70BOMLR710; ILR1969Bom1015; 1968MhLJ893
1. These two proceedings arise out of the decision of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satana, on deputation at Malegaon in Cri, Case No. 5245 of 1965.2. The facts giving rise to these cases are few and simple and are not in dispute. The property bearing House No. 48 at Malegaon belongs to accused No. 1 Sharadkumar Virchand Shah. Accused No. 2 happens to be his brother. One shop situated on the ground floor of that building was in occupation of complainant Hukmichand Dipchand Jain as a tenant of accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 instituted a suit for his eviction in the Court at Malegaon, the relief of possession being claimed on two grounds was that the suit premises were reasonably and bona fide required by him for his own occupation, and the second ground was that the property of which the premises formed a part was in need of repairs, which could be carried out after the shop was vacated by the tenant. These grounds were not accepted by the trial Court and the landlord's suit for e...
Tag this Judgment!