1
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-10-1972
Reported in : AIR1972P& H317
1. On 9th November, 1956 vide rent note, Exhibit P-2, Banarsi Dass took a shop, situate in Faridabad, District Gurgaon, on rent from Jag Mohan son of Jai Narayan for a period of 11 months @ Rs.4/- per month. The tenancy was to commence from 1st November, 1956. Even after the expiry of the period of tenancy the tenant remained in possession of the property and continued paying rent to the landlord. On 5th January, 1959, another rent note, Exhibit P-1, was written by the tenant in favour of the landlord and this was also for 11 months and at the same rate of rent, namely, Rs.4/- per mensem. Banarsi Dass, subsequently, died on 14th December, 1965. On 11th April, 1966, a notice was issued by the landlord to his legal representatives asking them to vacate the premises, because the tenancy in favour of Banarsi Dass had come to an end and they were occupying the shop as mere trespassers, and in case, they did not do so, they would have to pay Rs.100/- per month as damages for use and occupati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-16-1972
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi363
S.N. Andley, J.(1) The writ petition and the Letters Patent appeals cams up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench felt that several Supreme Court decisions and two Division Bench decisions of this Court had to be considered and they referred these matters to a Full Bench. This judgment will cover all these matters. (2) The writ petition is concerned with a property situate in Jor Bagh in New Delhi within the jurisdiction of the New Delhi Municipal Committee which is governed by the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The appeals are in respect of properties which are situate within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which is governed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Properties situate within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or the New Delhi Municipal Committee are again governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and were even before 1958 governed by the previous Rent Restriction Acts including the Delhi an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-07-1972
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi820
..... .c 1165 (57) the section 57(1) of delhi rent control act, 1958 provided that the delhi and ajmer rent control act in so far as it was applicable to the unionterritory of delhi was being repealed. while repealing it, by sub-section (2) of the same section, a special saving was made in favor of suits and other proceedings then pending under the repealed act and it was provided that those suits and other proceedings should be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the repealed act as if that act had continued to be in force and the new act had never been passed. further one of the provisos to the section made the following provision:- 'provided that in any such suit or proceedings for the fixation of standard rent or for the eviction of a tenant ..... and portion of a gaddi was given by the plaintiffs to the defendants the latter sub-let one of the halls to the punjab national bank limited at a rent of rs. 250.00 per month and realised from the bank two years rent in advance, amounting to rs. 6.000.00. in that connection a letter (exhibit public witness .12/1) was written by shri jagdish chander on behalf of the defendant firm acknowledging receipt of two years rent in advance. with that letter a copy of the letter of girdhari lal (exhibit d/16) was also sent to the bank authorities .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-18-1972
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi137
S.N. Andley, J. (1) The respondent is the owner of the building on plot No. 12/18, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagfa, New Delhi, comprising of three floors. The ground floor of this building is in the occupation as a tenant of the appellant while the entire remaining building is in the occupation of the respondent. The aforesaid plot has some open spaces in the front and on two sides of the said building. The respondent filed the suit which has given rise to this second appeal on May 15, 1968 which was decided by Mr. M. S. Saini Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, by his order dated April 7, 1970.(2) The respondent's case was that barring the building on the ground floor, the other areas on the ground floor including the open spaces in 'this plot were in his possession; that in order to harass and annoy the respondent the, appellant placed an old, out of order and used Ford car bearing No. Dlc 7525 in one of the open spaces at the place marked 'X' in the plan attached to the plaint a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-05-1972
Reported in : 1972RLR259
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This order will dispose of four second appeals from orders Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 50 of 1969 filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), all directed against the identical order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 29th October, 1968, by which the appeals of the tenants were dismissed and order of Mr. P. K.. Bahri, 1st Additional Controller dated 11th March, 1968 was affirmed, finally fixing the standard rent of the premises in occupation of the various tenants at Rs. 45.00 per month. (2) The dispute between the parties relates to a property situated at Kashmere Gate. Delhi. This property formerly consisted of a large hall on the ground floor, but later on in 1963 or so it has been converted into various shops which have been let out to different tenants at a rent of Rs. 90.00 per month each. The respondents in these appeals having taken the premises on rent in 1964, filed objections under section 9 of the Act for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-1972
Reported in : 1973CriLJ512; ILR1972Delhi189
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) The short question for determination as contained in the referring order is as to whether the Controller functioning under the provisions of Act 59 of 1958 is a Court within the meaning of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This judgment will, along with the reference dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 45 of 1971.(2) The petitioner has moved this court under section 561(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings pending against him before respondent No. 2. The allegations in the petition are that having obtained the permission of the competent authority the petitioner-landlord applied for the eviction of his tenant Hari Chand and obtained the eviction order dated the 4th of December, 1968, against which the appeal taken to the Rent Control Tribunal was dismissed on the 9th of February, 1970. He then took out execution proceedings. Hem Chand, respondent No. I to this petition along with hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-21-1972
Reported in : (1973)14GLR410
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal raises an interesting question of law as to the effect of repeal of Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Saurashtra Rent Act) on a suit filed by a landlord against a tenant in respect of premises exempt from the applicability of the Saurashtra Rent Act by reason of Section 4(2) of that Act. The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows.2. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant to recover possession of certain premises let to the defendant. The premises were situate in Bagasara which was formerly part of Saurashtra. The case of the plaintiff was that the premises were new premises erected and let for the first time after 1st January 1951 and, therefore, by reason of the exemption contained in Section 4(2), the Saurashtra Rent Act had no application to the premises and the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the premises under the ordinary law of landlor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-12-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Delhi297
1. The main question for decision in this second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) is whether the respondent tenant complied with the order of the Controller passed under Section 15 of the Act to obtain the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act. But in answering this question, various other provisions of the Act. e.g. Section 2(k) , 4 to 9, 12 and 13, and Section 59 to 60 and 72 of the Contract Act have also to be considered.2. The premises of the appellant landlord were let to the respondent tenant from 1-7-1944., In the suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent filed by the landlord under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent control Act. 1952 the standard rent to the premises was fixed by Shri J. L. Tandon, Subordinate Judge at Rs. 717-75 including house-tax. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the High Court on 19-3-1964. during the pendency of the appeal. the Delhi Rent Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jun-27-1972
Reported in : AIR1974Ker162
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. I regret that I have to disagree with the conclusion reached by my learned brother Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 2. The main contention that is raised by the respondent is that as the appellate authority is not a court (civil or criminal) the provision contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. An answer to this contention must depend on a decision regarding the extent of the applicability of the principles contained in the Limitation Act to the proceedings under the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 3. The Limitation Act contains the general law of limitation of actions. The various Articles in the First Schedule of the Act prescribe the period of limitation for suits, appeals and applications. The Act also lays down in Sections 4 to 24 the general principles for determination of the period of limitation for suits, appeals and applications. They relate to the powers of the court to extend, exclu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-14-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Delhi124; 8(1972)DLT351; 1972RLR37
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) This second appeal from order is directed against the order dated 7th June, 1968, passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the Tribunal set aside the order of the Rent Controller. Delhi, dated the 10th November, 1967. and remaded the case to the Bent Controller for decision on merits. (2) The only question for determination in this appeals as to whether it is open to the appellant to raise the question of lack of notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act after a long lapse of 4 years after the parties had proceeded to trial and led evidence on merits of the case. (3) With a view to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties it would bs expedient to record a few facts of the case. The respondents who are the owners of the kothi in dispute situated in Khilonewala Bagh near Rana Partap Bagh, filed an application under section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for eviction of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!