Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-21-1981
Reported in : (1982)29CTR(Cal)15,[1983]141ITR419(Cal)
..... court.12. this question came up first before the supreme court in the case of new delhi municipal committee v. m.n. soi, air 1977 sc 302. there the supreme court observed although legislative provisions for the fixation of standard rent in new delhi contained in section 9 of the delhi rent control act of 1958 were comparatively recent and fairly elaborate, yet the fixation of rates for purposes of assessment of house tax was still governed by the provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the punjab municipal act, 1911, enacted at a time when there was no machinery for the control of rents. on a bare reading of the provisions of section 3 ..... of reasoning, that even if the standard rent of a building has not been fixed by the controller under section 9 of the kent act and the period of limitation prescribed by section 12 of the rent act for making an application for fixation of the standard rent having expired, it is no longer competent to the tenant to have the standard rent of the building fixed, the annual value of the building according to the definition given in sub-section (1) of section 23 of the i.t. act, 1961, must be held to be the standard rent determinable under the provisions of the rent act and not the actual rent received by the landlord from the tenant. this interpretation which we are placing on the language of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the i.t. act, 1961, may be regarded as having .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-13-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Cal428
ORDERDipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The plaintiff is the Receiver appointed in Suit No. 1683 of 1964 (Sitaram Dehi v. Basdeo Dehi & Ors.) inter alia, over premises No. 13, Pretoria Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises).2. M/s. Loch Lomond Lodge (P) Ltd., the defendant, was a monthly tenant of the said premise's at a rent of Rs. 885.50 per month payable according to the English Calendar.3. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against the defendant for eviction on the grounds of wrongful addition and alteration to the premises and wrongful sub-letting. The plaintiff also claims mesne profits and damages.4. The plaintiff alleges that since the institution of this suit a number of challans in respect of rent deposited by the defendant have not been received from the Rent Controller Calcutta between January 1968 till October 1972 and that the defendant has not also made any deposit of rent in this Court -- during the said period.5. It is contended that the deposits of ren...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-24-1981
Reported in : 20(1981)DLT22; 1981(2)DRJ153; ILR1982Delhi861
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 12/1/1979 of the Rent Control Tribunal passing the order of eviction under section 14(l)(e) of the Act. Mr. Rajiv Behl has raised a preliminary objection that this second appeal is barred by time. (2) Section 39 of the Act prescribes a period of 60 days for the filing of an appeal in this court from the date of the order of the Tribunal. Order 41 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the impugned order. Needless to say that the copy of the order must be a certified copy. Rule 2(b)of Chapter I-A of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court Vol. V, which are applicable to this court, requires the filing of a copy of the judgment of the court of first instance along with a copy of the order of the first appellate court. The appellant filed the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-31-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Delhi87; 20(1981)DLT364; 1981(2)DRJ262; ILR1982Delhi253
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Smt Ahmedi Begum is the owner of the property known as 'Dharampur Lodge' situated near Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar in terms of the registered lease deed executed on 12th April, 1948 was inducted as a tenant in the said property for five years on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000.00 . On 3rd April, 1953 another lease deed was executed between the aforesaid parties for a further period of five years. The tenant was in arrears of rent and he failed to pay the same in spite of a notice of demand dated 3rd June, 1957. His tenancy was also terminated by the said notice. (2) On 28th August, 1957 Smt. Ahmedi Begum filed a suit for eviction and recovery against the said tenant. On 31st August, 1959 the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi passed a decree for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 32.554/4.00 . The decree-holder took out execution in the court of the Subordinate Judge which was transferred to this court under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-07-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC537b; (1981)83BOMLR204; (1982)2CompLJ551(SC); 1981(1)SCALE62; (1981)1SCC523; [1981]2SCR466
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The appellant Natraj Studies (P.) Ltd., and the first respondent Navrang Studios, a firm, entered into an agreement on March 28, 1970, by which the latter granted the former 'leave and licence' for the use of their two studios and other premises described in list I annexed to the agreement and situated at 194 Kurla Road, Andheri Bombay, and the machineries, equipments, property setting materials etc. mentioned in list No. 2 annexed to the agreement. Though the agreement was initially for a period of 11 months it was extended from time to time. By an agreement dated November 5, 1972, the original agreement was extended for a period of eleven months from January 1, 1973. The 'leave and licence' agreement was thus in force on February 1, 1973, with effect from which date Section 15A was inserted in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, by an amendment (Maharashtra Act 17 of 1973). The effect of Section 15A was that any person who was in o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-06-1981
Reported in : 1981WLN323
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated December 9, 1980 of a learned single Judge of this Court by which he held the appellant guilty for contempt of court and sentenced her to one month's simple imprisonment and further to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and costs of the application.2. The appellant and respondent will hereinafter be referred as non-applicant and applicant respectively. The applicant instituted a suit for ejectment against the, non-applicant, in regard to shop No. 6 and certain other premises situate on Station Road Jodhpur. The suit was decreed by the Munsif city, Jodhpur on February 5, 1972. An appeal was preferred. The appellant's suit in respect of shop No. 5 was dismissed and for other premises, the decree was maintained on August 28, 1973 by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. A second appeal was lodged by the non applicant. In the second appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-01-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Delhi144; 19(1981)DLT293; ILR1981Delhi619; 1981RLR290
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.(1) This is a letters patent appeal from the order of a learned single judge dated 23-11-1973. (2) The salient facts are simple. The dispute centres round a plot of land No. 783-A situated in Mohalla Guru Nanakpura, Namaul. The single question is whether this plot was evacuee property. The respondents, Lala and Hari Ram (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) are father and SON. They claim that the said plot was owned by them and it was their ancestral property. (3) On 6-4-1963, this plot was listed as evacuee property in a report prepared by the Assistant Settlement Officer. That the said plot was an evacuee property was described as a 'new discovery' in the report. This is what the survey report said : 'ft is a new discovery. It is lying vacant at the spot. It is owned by one Hakim Sadiq Ali Patwari as told by Shri Net Ram member M. C. Illaqa.' The value of the property was estimated at Rs. 995. The officer who signed the survey report was one Sunder Dass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-03-1981
Reported in : (1982)84BOMLR67
Bhonsale, J.1. The petitioners who are respectively an education society, local managing committee and the college run by petitioner No. 1 Society, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the resolutions passed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Executive Council, Nagpur University, Nagpur dated May 23, 1977 and March 11, 1978 recommending setting aside of order of dismissal of respondent No. 4 and asking petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 to reinstate respondent No. 4 in the service of the petitioners and also refusing to withdraw the above mentioned recommendation at the instance of petitioner No. 3 i.e. Hislop College, Nagpur.2. Petitioner No. 1 - Hislop Education Society Nagpur, runs Hislop College in Nagpur - an educational institution of some repute. Petitioner No. 2 is the local managing committee of the Hislop College. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the Nagpur University, its executive council and the grievance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-06-1981
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi1; ILR1981Delhi917
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The facts. This is a case of considerable civic importance. It raises questions of some nicety regarding the municipal government of Delhi.(2) By an order of the Central Government dated April 11, 1980, made under section 490(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the Act)' the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the Corporation) was superseded. As a result all the 100 councillors and aldermen of the Corporation vacated their offices. They became functus officio. During the period of supersession all powers and duties of the Corporation were directed to be exercised and performed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation under sub-section (2) of section 490. All properties of the Corporation at once vested in the Central Government. The petitioner, Satish Chander Khandelwal,was elected as a councillor in the general elections to the Corporation on June 15, 1977, for a period of four years. He too had to vacate his office. He has brought this wri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-20-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC1284a; 1981(1)SCALE401; (1981)2SCC535; [1981]2SCR962
Tulzapurkar, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Allahabad High Court on February 16, 1979 in Second Appeal No. 430 of 1970 whereby the High Court decreed the respondents' (landlords) suit for ejectment against the appellant (tenant) and the only question of substance raised in the appeal is whether when the landlords' notice demanding arrears and seeking eviction is sent by registered post and is refused by the tenant the latter could be imputed the knowledge of the contents thereof so that upon his failure to comply with the notice the tenant could be said to have committed wilful default in payment of rent ?2. The question arises in these circumstances : The appellant occupied shop No. 5 in Ivanhoe Estate, situated at Landure Cantonment, Mussorie, originally owned by one Parvij Waris Rasool, on an yearly rental of Rs. 250 payable by December 31, every year. The property at all material times was admittedly governed b...
Tag this Judgment!