Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-11-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Delhi142; 17(1980)DLT234; 1980(1)DRJ11
H.L. Anand, J.1. This is a tenant's petition under proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 assailing the order of eviction. The principal question that it raised was as to the liability of the tenant to eviction merely on the ground that the premises at present available to owners, though otherwise sufficient for their requirements having regard to the extent of the accommodation and of the family, was nevertheless insufficient, because on account of strained relations between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, a separate unit in the premises could not be provided for a branch of the family. Certain subsequent event have to an extent changed the context in which the order was made and have thrown up an additional problem as to their effect and the course to be followed in the changed circumstances.2. The property, in which the premises in dispute is situated is jointly owned by the mother, principal of a government school and her two sons ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-10-1979
Reported in : AIR1980SC214; (1980)1SCC321; [1980]1SCR875
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The question involved in this case is whether a suit for ejectment filed in respect of any non-residential building or part thereof pending before any court on the date on which the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act No. XVIII of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act') was amended by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Amendment Act, 1964 (Act No. XI of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amending Act') could have been proceeded with after that date. It arises in the following circumstances:Haji Mohamed Hussain Sait, the father of the plaintiff, Haji Abdulla Sait was the owner of a building situated in the city of Madras. He leased it out in favour of the defendant, K. Seetharama Rao under a lease deed dated July 8, 1940 for the purpose of running a restaurant known as 'Modern Cafe' in it for a period of three years with effect from July 15, 1940 on a monthly rent of Rs. 950/-. The agreed period of lease...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-04-1979
Reported in : 15(1979)DLT330; 1979RLR370
Leila Seth, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 1st February, 1973. (2) The facts in brief, are that the appellant took a room on the ground floor of premises No. A-430, defense Colony, New Delhi on a monthly rental of Rs. 150.00 . He was running his business under the name and style of M/s. Seth Estates Agency therein. No lavatory, bath room or kitchen or any other facility was attached to this room. On 3rd June, 1963 arent note was executed which is Exhibit A-9 which mentions that the room has been taken for residential purposes. The landlord was one Girdhari Lal predecessor of the respondents. (3) Girdhari Lal filed an ejectment petition dated 27th December, 1965, against the appellant mainly on the ground of misuse etc. This was suit No. 43 of 1965. On 10th October, 1966 Girdhari Lal filed another petition for ejectment being suit No. 366/66. On 20th June, 1967, Girdhari Lal died. On 20th September, 1967, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-23-1979
Reported in : AIR1979SC1803a; [1979(39)FLR309]; 1979LabIC1261; (1979)IILLJ416SC; (1979)4SCC573; [1980]1SCR61
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Having had the advantage of reading my learned brother's judgment I should have stopped mine with a single sentence, following the example of Diplock, L.J. who in Hughes v. Hughes See Foot-note 49 in Law and Politics by Robert Steveris merely said: 'For the reasons given by my brother Harman I would dismiss the appeal'. But I respect brother Sen's request that my concurrence notwithstanding I should, in a separate opinion, highlight the quintessential aspects and reinforce the legal conclusions which are interpretatively decisive and constitutionally validatory of Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (briefly, the Act). That is the apology for this separate judgment of mine. Why an apology? Because exordiums are opprobriums and socio-economic apercus are anathemas for some judicial psyches; and I should have, for that reason, abandoned my habitual deviance from the orthodox norm idealised by some that a judicial judg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-12-1979
Reported in : AIR1980SC303; (1980)1SCC403; [1980]1SCR1177; 1980(12)LC39(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 123 of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the appellant against the judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in Election Petition No. 3 of 1977 dismissing an election petition filed by him on the ground that he had not complied with Section 89(3) of the Act.2. At the general election held in the year 1977 to elect members to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the appellant and the respondent were candidates for the seat to be filled from the Handwara Assembly Constituency. The respondent was declared as the successful candidate by the Returning Officer. Thereafter the appellant filed an election petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir challenging the validity of the respondent's election on various grounds. The respondent raised two preliminary objections to the election petition-(1) that the petition had not been presente...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-08-1979
Reported in : AIR1980All242
M.N. Shukla, J.1. In this execution second appeal the question that arises for decision is whether the compromise decree under execution was a nullity and also otherwise inexecutable ?2. The respondent is the owner of a shop in suit which was let out to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 26. The landlord after determining the tenancy by giving a formal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act filed a suit for ejectment with the allegation that the shop was constructed after 1951 and therefore the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. III of 1947) did not apply to it. The landlord prayed for ejectment of the appellant and claimed arrears of rent and past mesne profits up to the date of the filing of the suit. The appellant denied the allegation that the accommodation in suit was constructed after 1951 and took a definite plea that the shop was quite old and had been constructed long before 1951 and hence U. P. Act No. III of 1947 was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-09-1979
Reported in : 18(1980)DLT118
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) The revision petition filed by the landlord from the order of the Rent Controller raises one question. It is about the meaning of the term 'dwelling house' as used in the provision to Section 14A(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act).(2) The undisputed facts of this case are these. Nanak Ghand Gupta, Petitioner, is the landlord of house No, 6349, Block No. 7, Gali No. 1 in Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The respondent Ish Kumar Verma, is his tenant in a portion of this house. One room was let to him on November 11, 1962 at a monthly rent of Rs. 35.00 . He was also given the right to use the W.G. and bath in common with the landlord. (3) The landlord is a government servant. He was living in this house till 1974. He had three rooms in his possession. On August 9, 1974 he was allotted Government quarter No. N/552, Sector 8, in R.K. Puram, New Delhi. When he shifted he kept out of the three rooms which were with him two rooms in his possession. And in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-03-1979
Reported in : 1981(8)ELT699(Cal)
M.N. Roy, J.1. This Rule was obtained on September 24, 1973, against certain orders made upto revision under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in respect of two consignments as mentioned hereinafter, meant for export out of India.2. The petitioner, Harchand, has stated to have carried on business, at all material times, under the name and style of Harchand Jawharmal. He has claimed to be the sole proprietor of the firm as mentioned above and has also stated to have carried on such business at premises No. 65, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta. In the Rule, the orders made after revision, in respect of two sets of cases have been impeached. The first case relates to nine consignments under nine shipping bills and the second one relates to four consignments under four shipping bills. So far as the first case is concerned, the relevant orders would be Order No. 21 dated February 18, 1967, as passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta; Order No. 492 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-19-1979
Reported in : AIR1980SC1896; (1980)ILLJ137SC; (1980)2SCC593; [1980]2SCR146
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1212, 2089 and 2237 of 1978. From the Judgment and order dated 15-6-1978 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1150 of 1976. Y.S. Chitale, J.C. Bhatt, A.K. Sen, J.M. Nanavati, D.C. Gandhi, A.G. Menses, K.J. John and K.K. Manchanda for the Appellants in C.A. 1212 and 2237/78 and RR. 1 in CA 2089. V.M. Tarkunde, Y.S. Chitale, P.H. Parekh and N.J. Mehta for the Appellant in CA 2089 and R. 1 in CA 1212. M.C. Bhandare and B. Datta for the Intervener in CA 1212 (Ahmedabad Nagar Employee Union). R.K. Garg, Vimal Dave and Miss Kailash Mehta for the Intervener Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha in CA 1212. The Judgment of V.R. Krishna Iyer, and D.A. Desai, JJ was delivered by Krishna Iyer, J.A.D. Koshal, J. gave a dissenting Opinion. KRISHNA IYER, J.-Every litigation has a moral and, these appeals have many, the foremost being that the economics of law is the essence of labour jurisprudence. The case in a nutshell- An affluent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-01-1979
Reported in : (1979)2MLJ413
Ismail, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree of this Court on fee original side, namely, in C.S. No. 218 of 1965. The former appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, while the latter appeal has been filed by the third defendant in the suit. Since both sides have preferred appeals, for the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as they have been arrayed in the suit. Admittedly the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. Equally admittedly the property was leased to one late Seetharama Rao under Exhibit P-1 dated 8th July, 1940 and the lease expired on 15th July, 1943, but late Seetharama Rao continued to be in possession as a tenant holding over. This was obviously because the Rent Control Orders and the legislations that were in force in this State gave protection to such persons from eviction. The legislation regarding control of rents started during the second world war. In the then Presidency of Madras the first two orders under the Defence of India R...
Tag this Judgment!