Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-29-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Delhi26; 13(1977)DLT5; 1978RLR558
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This appeal has been filed by Miss Nirmal Chaudhary against the order dated 2nd August, 1977, passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the certified copy of the order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller dated 31-1-1975 which was impugned before it by way of appeal from the said order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller. (2) The learned Addl. Rent Controller had passed an order for ejectment dated 30-1-1976 against the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent and held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) of the said Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). (3) Since the order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller contemplated immediate eviction of the appellant, the appellant applied for certified copy of that order by an urgent application on 2-2-1976. The copy was not ready and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-21-1978
Reported in : 14(1978)DLT179; 1979RLR20
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) This is a second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent control Act 1958. The appellant is the tenant of the second floor of a house No. 6/29, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The premises in his possession comprise just one room, the barsati. He was inducted into the premises on i2th December 1968 at a rent of Rs. 130.00 per month. (2) On 19th August 1972, the respondent who is the landlords, instituted a petition for recovery of possession against the appellent. A number of grounds were taken in that petition, but the Additional Rent Controller made an order for recovery of possession only under section 14(1)(e) of the Act on the ground that the premises were required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family dependent on him. The other grounds were rejected. This order was made on 1st March 1974. An appeal by the tenant was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 6th January 1978, and the findings of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-06-1978
Reported in : ILR1979Delhi139
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) It is the effect of the change in the definition of 'tenant' in section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the principal Act) brought about by the retrospective amendment made by section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (amending Act), which is to be considered in these appeals referred to the Full Bench.(2) The Questions (1) What is the meaning of 'tenant' in section 2(1) of the principal Act firstly under the old definition as it existed prior to 1st December, 1975 and secondly in the amended definition with effect from 1st December, 1975 (2) Does the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal and others v. Parashram and others, : AIR1976SC2229 , apply to the construction of the old definition of 'tenant' in preference to the majority decision in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi and others, : [1964]4SCR892 , followed in J. C. Chatterjee & others, v. Shri Sri Kishan Tandon and others, : [1973]1SCR850 Whether in the new defin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-08-1978
Reported in : [1979]116ITR440(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This reference arises out of the proceedings for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, the corresponding previous years having ended on 31st December, 1961, and 28th February, 1962, respectively. The income-tax assessments were completed under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on a total income of Rs. 58,47,380 and Rs. 31,13,458 on 22nd February, 1964, and 23rd March, 1964, for the two assessment years respectively. The assessee had discontinued its business in India on 28th February, 1962, and had filed a claim under Section 25(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, on 27th March, 1962. In the said claim, it was stated by the assessee as under :'With reference to our letter dated 12th March, 1962, and in accordance with the provisions of the above Section whereby no income-tax and super-tax shall be payable by us in respect of the income, profits or gains for the period between the end of the previous year and 28th February, 1962, by virtue of our business...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-06-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Delhi186; 15(1979)DLT198; 1979RLR127
Deshpandie, C.J.1. It is the effect of the change in the definition of 'tenant' in Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the principal Act) brought about by the retrospective amendment made by Section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (amending Act), which is to be considered in these appeals referred to the Full Bench.2. The Questions:(1) What is the meaning of 'tenant' in Section 2(1) of the principal Act firstly under the old definition as it existed prior to lst December, 1075 and secondly in the amended definition with effect from lst December, 1975. (2) Does the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal v. Parashram, : AIR1976SC2229 , apply to the construction of the old definition of 'tenant' in preference to the majority decision in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi, : [1964]4SCR892 , followed in J. C. Chatterjee v. Sri Kishan Tandon, : [1973]1SCR850 . (3) Whether in the new definition clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 2(1) have to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-07-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Guj98; (1978)GLR1076
1. The parties to this Second Appeal were married in village Sander District Mehsana according to Hindu rites, some time in the year 1961. The husband contends that they last resided together in Bhavnagar in the month of Dec. 1970 and thereafter his wife deserted him and refused to resume cohabitation. On this ground, he filed a petition No. 39/71 in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter called 'the Act' for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent-wife, though served with the summons of the said petition, did not enter appearance and allowed it to be disposed of ex parte. The learned Judge framed issues at Ex. 6 and came to the conclusion that the respondent-wife had, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the husband. He, therefore, granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Act on 23rd August, 1971. The certified copy of the judgment in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-07-1978
Reported in : AIR1979P& H102
D.S. Tewatia, J.1. In these three writ petitions, namely, Civil Writs Nos. 1462, 1507 and 1518 of 1976, as also in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2977 of 19771 common questions of law and facts, excepting the names of the parties and the places where they carry on their business, are involved and, therefore, we propose a common judgment for them. For the purpose of reference the facts and assertions stated in Civil Writ No. 1462 of 1976 and the respondent's return thereto shall be taken notice of wherever found necessary. 2. The petitioners are engaged in the business of selling drugs (medicinal preparations) and cosmetics (toilet preparations), alcoholic and non-alcoholic, in the State of Punjab under licences issued under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act No. 23 of 1940, and the rules framed thereunder, as amended from time to time. (hereinafter called the 'Drugs Act'). 3. The petitioners, besides impugning Notification No. S. O. 2/P, A. I/14/ 3/76, dated 6-2-1976, Annexure P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-18-1978
Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR349
Deshpande, J.1. This case and the group of connected cases is referred to this division Bench. It raises an important question as to the true interpretation of Section 3(4) of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act being Act No. 46 of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'), as amended by Amendment Act No. 22 of 1972. The question is whether fresh notification under amended Section 3 of the Central Act extending the Act retrospectively is necessary to validate the decrees, etc. passed before the prospective extension of the Rent Act under earlier notification dated December 27, 1969?2. The petitioner is the landlord. His suit for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act' against his tenant, the respondent, from a house in a cantonment area in Kirkee, was decreed on March 12, 1967 in the belief that the Rent Act applied to the said area.3. The house in dispute in this case as also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-14-1978
Reported in : ILR1979Delhi387
ORDER S.O.265(E)/18AA/IDRA/78 - Whereas the Central Government is satisfied from the documentary and other evidence in its possession, that the persons in charge of the industrial undertaking, namely, (i) M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Kanpur, (ii) M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Pondicherry, (iii) M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Naini, (iv) M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Maunath Bhanjan, (v) M/s. Udaipur Cotton Mills Ltd., Udaipur and (vi) M/s. Rai Bareli Textile Mills Ltd., Rae Bareli of M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Kaapur (hereinafter referred as the said industrial undertakings), have by creation of encumbrances on the assets of the said industrial undertakings, brought about a situation which has affected and is likely to further affect the production of articles manufactured or produced in the said industrial undertaking and that immediate action is necessary to prevent such a situation; NOWtherefore, in exercise of power conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 18AA of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-28-1978
Reported in : AIR1978Delhi286; ILR1978Delhi368; 1978RLR378
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This is a tenant's Second Appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, by which the Rent Control Tribunal reversed the order of the Controller, dismissing the landlord's application- for the eviction of the tenant, on the ground that on account of the admitted user of a residential premises by the tenant for running a boarding and lodging house in the demised premise's, the tenant was liable to be evicted by virtue of clause (k) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for short, the Act, and remanded the case to the Controller for consideration under sub-section (II) of section 14 of the Act. The Second Appeal was filed in the following circumstances :- (2) The premises in dispute, which are admittedly of a residential nature, and built on leasehold land, were let out to the tenant by the predecessor-in-title of the present landlords, the respondents in this appeal There was some controversy at an earlier stage o...
Tag this Judgment!