Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-03-1989
Reported in : 1990MPLJ412
T.N. Singh, J.1. On admitted facts, defendant/appellant has raised a short, but important question of law in this second appeal. Decrees passed by two Courts below, it is contended, suffer jurisdictional incompetence and must be set aside on that account.2. In the opening paragraph of its judgment, the lower appellate Court has focussed on the crux of the controversy. The four-fold entitlement of the plaintiffs accepted by the trial Court in passing decree in that regard is set out. In title suit No. 78/81 which plaintiffs had instituted for defendant's eviction from the suit-house, a preliminary decree was passed on 9-4-1965 directing, inter alia, that defendant should hand over vacant possession of the suit house to the plaintiffs latest by 8-7-1965 and that on possession being so delivered to the plaintiffs, they would be entitled to pray for mesne profits on paying court-fees in that regard and obtain decree for that on enquiry into their claim in that regard being completed.2-A. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-15-1989
Reported in : ILR1990Delhi16; 1990RLR112
Bahri, J.(1) In this civil revision brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act challenging the eviction order dated December 17, 1986, made by an Additional Rent Controller, on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a learned Single Judge has made a reference on the question of law to be decided by this Bench. The relevant portion of the reference remembered order is reproduced as follows : 'The learned Additional Rent Controller has relied on a judgment of this Court in 'Food Corporation of India v. Smt. Usha Bhardwaj' 1986(2) Rcj 52(1), for the proposition that the Rent Controller has no power to extend the period of limitation for putting in appearance and filing an application for leave to defend. I have been referred to two contrary judgments of this Court. The first one is by M. L. Jam, J., in Surinder Kumar v. Prem Kumar. 1980 Rlr 621(2), and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-13-1989
Reported in : ILR1989Delhi173; 1989RLR186
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The appellant herein was defendant in the suit (S. No. 108(80), instituted by the respondent in respect to a plot of land bearing No. E-2, Bali Nagar, New Delhi, which was alleged to have been let out to him under an agreement dated 22nd May, 1971 initially for a period of 11 months and extended from time to tims up to 22nd February, 1976. The suit was for recovery of possession on the plea that she tenancy of the defendant (appellant herein), had come to an end by efflux of time, having nut been renewed after 22nd of February, 1976 but nevertheless as a measure of abundant caution, the plaintiff also served a notice of termination of tenancy on the defendant with effect from 22nd March, 1977, by means of notice dated 28th February, 1977 duly served upon him, and that since the defendant had refused to surrender possession despite this notice, the suit was necessitated. (2) The suit was contested on a number of pleas, including denial of status of the plaintiff a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-25-1989
Reported in : 40(1990)DLT82; 1990RLR95
R.N. Pyne, J. (1) This Regular First Appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant Sfari Mahavir Prashad against the decree passed by the Additional District Judge dated 10th July, 1986 in Suit No. 224 of 1984 filed by this plaintiffs/respondents herein. The said decree was passed in favor of the plaintiffs/respondents for possession of the portion comprising of two rooms, one kitchen and common latrine and bath room on the ground floor of the property bearing No. 4759, Deputy Gaoj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, and for damages for use and occupation with effect from 1st April, 1983 to 31st July, 1984 @ Rs.50U.00 per month as also for further damages at the same rate from 1st August, 1984 till recovery of possession. (2) In the plaint it is stated by the plaintiffs that they are the owners of property No. 4759. Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, which was construct- ed on plot No 5. It is further slated that they purchased the property by virtue of different registered sale deeds from its previ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-11-1989
Reported in : AIR1990MP224
K.V. Verma, J.1. Sensing a conflict between 'Jagdish Chandra v. Sara Bai, 1984 MPRCJ (Note) 105, dated 13-3-1984 of Muley, J. and 'Phool Chandra Garg v. Ram Narain' in C. M. A. No. 85 of 1974, (G) decided by Rampal Singh, J., on 28-6-1985, on the interpretation of Sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Act 41 of 1961) -- hereinafter 'the Act'--, the learned single Judge, Dr. T. N. Singh, J., stated the following question for decision by a larger Bench.'Whether it is obligatory on the Court passing the decree for eviction to make an order for determination of 'standard rent' in accordance with the provisions of Section 7/10 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act before passing an order of compensation payable to the landlord and before landlord's obtaining possession of the concerned premises, or the order for compensation may be passed on the basis of agreed or contractual rent, according to the terms of the tenancy between the parties?'2. For a foc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-14-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR2215; 1989(2)KarLJ172
Hiremath, J. 1. The respondent D.P. Sharma is the owner of a building named 'Sunitha Bhavan' on Tippu Sultan Palace Road, at Bangalore. On 18-11-1982, he leased it out to the appellant Smt. D. Shakuntala for running a hotel-restaurant under a lease deed on a monthly rent, of Rs. 4,500/- for a period of 5 years. The appellant appears to have added some amenities like kitchen on the first-floor and a hotel called 'Hotel Kamadenu' was being run in the said premises by a partnership firm which appears to have later come into existence between the said D. Shakuntala and one A.M. Ahuja. It appears, in 1988 there was no smooth sailing for this hotel. There was labour, unrest and the hotel was being run under loss. The partnership even thought of closing it down. It appears, the employees of the hotel were against the closing down of the establishment and the partnership was not happy with them. A suit for injunction in O.S.No. 572/88 came to be filed before the City Civil Court against the em...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-20-1989
Reported in : AIR1989Bom362; 1989(2)BomCR533; (1989)91BOMLR252
1. The principal question which arise in this suit is this:- Where two partners together hold the premises of the firm as tenants, does the relinquishment of his interest in the tenancy by one partner in favour of the other, constitute , assignment or transfer of his interest in the tenancy, which is forbidden by Section 15(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates control Act ?The suit instituted by Dr. Nariman Irani, the partner of the Defendant Dr. Adi Merwan Irani in the business known as 'Dr. Irani's Maternity and surgical Nursing Home, at 7, Jer Mansion, 1st Floor, 70-B, gowalia Tank Road, Bombay -26' is mainly for a declaration that two writings executed by him on 13th October, 1976, purporting to 'gift' his share in the partnership in favour of the Defendant are not valid and that the partnership firm continues to exist as it did, before th execution of the two writings. 2. The plaintiffs case is as under:-The Plaintiff and the Defendanttogether hold, on lease ,afla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-21-1989
Reported in : AIR1990SC560; JT1989(2)SC483; 1989Supp(1)SCC430; [1989]2SCR629
S. Ranganathan, J.1. This is a batch of appeals and writ petitions challenging the validity of a notification issued on 15-12-1986 by the Central Government under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act (Act of Parliament No. 31 of 1966), hereinafter referred to as 'the Reorganisation Act'. By this notification, the Central Government purported to extend to the Union territory of Chandigarh - hereinafter referred to also as 'Chandigarh' - The provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 (Punjab Act 2 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1985 Act), as it was in force in the State of Punjab at the date of the notification and subject to the modifications mentioned in the said notification. The Punjab and Haryana High Court by its judgment in Ramesh Birch v. Union , upheld the validity of the above notification and hence the special leave petitions. The writ petitions have been directly filed in this Court challenging the validity of the notification...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-18-1989
Reported in : 1991(2)BomCR609
V.V. Kamat, J.1. This petition seeks a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 31st July 1981 made in Case No. Rent 45/80 by the Rent Controller, Goa North Division, respondent No. 4 and order dated 12th September, 1988 made in Eviction Appeal No. 65/81 by the Administrative Tribunal, respondent No.3.2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners are the landlords of a building called Ganga Niwas situated at Panaji, Goa. By a lease agreement executed between the parties on 9th August 1968 the first floor premises consisting of 11 rooms was let out as office accommodation of the Directorate of Agriculture or any other Government Office. The lease stipulated that it shall be for a period of 360 days with effect from 1st May, 1968 to be automatically renewed for equal period in future on payment of the monthly rent of Rs. 1,925/- to the be paid by the 10th of the following month...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-01-1989
Reported in : AIR1990SC678; (1989)4SCC550; [1989]Supp1SCR8
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is a tenants' appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad. The question involved in this appeal, as is usual, in all these cases, is what is just in the circumstances and events that have happened.2. The premises in question is in the village and P.O. Dhampur in the District of Bijnor in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The suit was filed in 1967. The suit for the eviction of the appellants was filed on the ground that tenants had made material alteration in the property and as such became liable for ejectment in view of Section 3(1)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). The said Section 3 in the said provision enjoins that no suit without the permission of the District Magistrate shall be filed in any civil court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation, except on one or more of the grounds enumerated therein and Cla...
Tag this Judgment!