Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-26-1991
Reported in : 46(1992)DLT191
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this petition are that Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, petitioner herein, filed an eviction petition against Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent. Control Act as amended by the Amend Act, 1988 for recovery of immediate possession of premises situated at plot No. 9 Block No. 159. 4, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. Summons under Iii Schedule of the Delhi Rent Control Act were issued and the respondent appeared and filed an application seeking leave to defend the petition Along with an affidavit of Shri Ramesh Chandra, Executive Director of the respondent company. The facts as alleged in the affidavit are that the petitioner is residing at 27, Akbar Road which is known as 9, Man Singh Road having an area of 5 acres on which a two-storeyed building has been constructed. There are 30 large size rooms in that bungalow besides servant quarters numbering about 20 and garages etc. and the petitioner has more than three rooms in her exclusive p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-15-1991
Reported in : AIR1993Guj5; (1992)1GLR79
ORDERC.K. Thakkar, J.1. This group of petitions is filed against the order dated May 30, 1987 passed by the District Judge, Bhavnagar in various appeals filed before him under Section 9 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Public Premises Act').2. The facts giving rise to the present controversy may now be shortly stated.'The petitioner is a 'Board' i.e. the Housing Board constituted under Section 3 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Housing Board Act'). The respondent in each petition is an allottee of a tenament either in Middle Income Group (MIG for short) or in Lower Income Group (LIG for short) Scheme of Housing Board at Bhavnagar. It is the case of the petitioner-Board that the allottees had not paid rent equivalent to amount of instalments due and payable under the agreement to sell entered into between the Housing Board on one hand and the allottees who are tenants of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-31-1991
Reported in : 44(1991)DLT678; 1991(21)DRJ122
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) This is landlord's revision petition filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), assailing the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi passed on 19th July, 1985 whereby his petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act was dismissed.(2) The petitioner had approached the Rent Controller with the aforesaid eviction petition filed on 23rd January, 1981 for order of eviction against the respondent Surinder Kumar Sharma, a tenant under him in respect to premises consisting of one room, one kitchen and a common bath room and latrine on the ground floor of premises bearing No. 2-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, of which the petitioner claims to be the owner/landlord. The petition was based on the plea that the petitioner had a large family consisting of himself, his wife, aged mother, six sons-two of whom were married, and a married daughter, living in Delhi and the accomodation which he had in his occ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-06-1991
Reported in : AIR1992Raj75; 1991(2)WLN237
ORDERS.N. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a revsion petition against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Hindaun City, rejecting the application of the petitioner-applicant filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.2. The plaintiff non petitioner No. 1 filed a suit on 31-7-1984 for eviction against the defendant non petitioner No. 2 on several grounds including sub-letting the disputed shop to the petitioner. In para 5 of the plaint, it has been stated as under: --^^mDr nqdku tksM+krHkh ls izfroknh us fcyk btktr oknh] fdlh eqds'k y?kq m|kksx fg.Mksu izksikbZVjlrh'k pUn tSu dks lcySV dj fn;k gS**3. The suit was contested by the defendant and in reply of para 4 of the plaint, it has been submitted as under:--^^izfroknh fnukad 31&3&81rd dk fdjk;k oknh dks ;Fkk le; vnk dj pqdk gS A blds ckn fnukad 1&4&81ls oknh us mDr tksM+k nqdku eqrnkfo'k esllZ eqds'k y?kq m|ksx fg.MksuizksizkbZVj lrh'k pUn iq= uRFkh yky tkfr tSu fuoklh fg.Mksu dks 200@&:i;kekgokj fdjk;s ij ns nh rFkk oknh fnukad 1&4&81 ls mDr eqds'k y?...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-01-1991
Reported in : 44(1991)DLT453; 1991(21)DRJ77
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) This case has a chequered history. Respondents 1 to 3. who are the sons of the original decree-holder, deceased Shri Ahmed Ali Khan, are seeking to execute a decree which was passed in favor of their father, for eviction of petitioner's father as far back as on 29th January, I960. The father and predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 3 had filed a suit for eviction under the provisions of Section 13 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952'), which culminated in the aforesaid decree on the ground of his personal requirement and that of his family members dependent on him, which obviously included his sons. The decree, however, could not be executed because under the provisions of Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Slum Areas Act'), the decree-holder was required to obtain sanction of the competent authority under the said Act for executing the decree in relation to the property situated in a slum area...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-06-1991
Reported in : II(1991)ACC449; 1991ACJ1060; AIR1991SC2156; 1992(2)BLJR816; [1992]75CompCas611(SC); JT1991(3)SC660; 1992(1)KLT338(SC); (1992)101PLR156; 1991(2)SCALE493; (1991)4SCC333; [199
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. Special leave is granted.2. The appellant was injured in a road accident and his claim petition has been dismissed as being barred by limitation. The accident took place on 22.1.1989. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed by Section 217(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which came into force on 1.7.1989. The period of limitation for filing a claim petition both under the old Act and the new Act being six months expired on 22.7.1989. The claim petition of the appellant, however, was filed belatedly on 15.3.1990 with a prayer for condonation of delay. The Accident Claims Tribunal held that in view of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the new Motor Vehicles Act, the delay of more than six months could not be condoned. The application was accordingly dismissed. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the decision before the High Court.3. It has been contended that since the accident took place when the old Motor Vehicles Act was in force...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-11-1991
Reported in : 43(1991)DLT425; 1991RLR201
M.C. Jain, J.(1) This bunch of writ petitions mentioned in the schedule annexed to this judgment (Not printed--Ed.) raises a common question regarding the constitutional validity of Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(2) For appreciating the controversy raised in these writ petitions, it would be appropriate that the history of rent control legislation is taken into account. Before enacting the rent control laws, the relations of the landlords and the tenants were governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. That was the general law applicable to landlords and tenants but on account of scarcity of accommodation i.e. shortage of housing accommodation. Rent control legislation came into being. So far as Delhi is concerned, under rule 21 of the defense of India Rules, New Delhi House Rent Control Order, 1939 was issued. Its application was extended to Municipality of New Delhi and to the notified area of Civil Station, Delhi, Rule 81(2) (bb) empowered the Centr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-25-1991
Reported in : 43(1991)DLT394; 1991(20)DRJ236
..... 8) of the rent act, on 26.5.1987-the respondents filed an application c.m. 2892/88 on 2.12.88, raising a plea that a new cl. (c) has been added to s. 3 of the rent act, by the delhi rent control (amendment) act, 1988 which lays cown that the act shall not apply to any premises whether residential or not whose monthly lent exceeds rs. 3,500.00 per month. in view of the above amendment, the premises in question were not covered by the provisions of rent act, 1958, as the agreed rent was more ..... considered some case law cited by shri s. ganesh. (55) section 3(c) is not simply a provision of change of forum as contended by shri marwaha, learned counsel for the respondent. by non-application of the rent act to the premises described under s. 3(c), the tenants of such premises have been deprived of the benefits and protection conferred on them by the provisions of the rent act like fixation of standard rent and protection against eviction. change of forum is also the consequence of the non-application of the act. if the law would have been a law relating to change ..... limited retrospective operation i.e. up to april, 1956.(30) in mohd. idris v. sat narain, : [1966]3scr15 the u.p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act came into force w.e.f. july 1,1952. the suit was filed en may 27, 1952 when the abolition act was not on the statute book. when the abolition act was passed, it did not repeal the u.p. agriculturists relief act. both the acts continued on the statute book till july 12, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-03-1991
Reported in : 1992ACJ173; ILR1991KAR778; 1991(2)KarLJ53
Rama Jois, J. 1. In these three appeals presented under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the following common question of law arises for consideration:Whether the No Fault Liability in the case of death caused by a motor accident, is Rs. 15,000/- as fixed in Section 92A of the 1939 Act which was in force on the date of accident, which gave rise to the claim petitions out of which these appeals arise, or Rs. 25,000/-as fixed in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into force on 1-7-1989, which was in force on the date on which the Tribunal made the orders?2. These appeals have come up for orders and by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, they have been taken up for final hearing and are disposed of by this common order.3. Brief facts of the case are these:-(a) M.F.A. No. 1896/1990:- The accident which resulted in the death of the deceased took place on 25-5-1989. The claim petition was filed on 9-6-1989. In the claim petition, an in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-03-1991
Reported in : II(1992)ACC309
Rama Jois, J. 1. In these three appeals presented under Section 110 -- D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the following common question of law arises for consideration:Whether the No Fault Liability in the case of death caused by a motor accident, is Rs. 15,000/- as fixed in Section 92A of the 1939 Act which was in force on the date of accident, which gave rise to the claim petitions out of which these appeals arise, or Rs. 25,000/- as fixed in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into force on 1-7-1989, which was in force on the date on which the Tribunal made the orders2. These appeals have come up for orders and by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, they have been taken up for final hearing and are disposed of by this common order.3. Brief facts of the case are these:-(a) M.F.A. No. 189611990:- The accident which resulted in the death of the deceased took place on 25-5-1989. The claim petition was filed on 9-6-1989. In the claim petition, an...
Tag this Judgment!