Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-11-1993
Reported in : AIR1993Delhi278
..... act' as appearing in section 57(2) of delhi rent control act. 1958 came up for consideration. the delhi rent control act, 1958 has repealed the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952. section 57(2) provides that notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said act (1952 act) pending, at the commencement of 1958 act, before any court or other authority shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said act as if the said act had continued in force and 1958 act had not been passed. the first proviso to section 57(2) provides that any suit or proceeding fixation of standard rent ..... milk co-operatives. the effect of imposition would be the wastage of residual skimmed milk because of its limited shelf life. further the milk is not being lifted in large quantity from co-operatives as is evident fro ..... government of india, to exercise the powers and functions of the controller under the order. the controller shall, subject to the control of the central government, be responsible for the general implementation and control of the provisions of the order. paragraph 12 also states that the controller shall, without prejudice to any other powers ..... applicability when the impugned action is per se arbitrary, perverse and demonstrably irrelevant to the object of the act. as noticed earlier, the impugned orders are per se arbitrary, perverse and are based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations which have no nexus with the object of the act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-11-1993
Reported in : 1993(25)DRJ514
..... act' as appearing in section 57(2) of delhi p73 rent control act, 1958 came up for consideration. the delhi rent control act, 1958 has repealed the delhi and ajmer rent control act. 1952. section 57(2) provides that notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said act (1952 act) pending, at the commencement of 1958 act, before any court or other authority shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said act as if the said act had continued in force and 1958 act had not been passed. the first proviso to section 57(2) provides that any suit or proceeding for the fixation of standard rent ..... milk cooperatives. the effect of imposition would be the wastage of residual skimmed milk because of its limited shelf life. further the milk is not being lifted in large quantity from cooperatives as is evident from the ..... of india, to exercise the powers and functions of the controller under the order. the controller shall, subject to the control of the central government, be responsible for the general implementation and control of the provisions of the order. paragraph 12 also states that the controller shall, without prejudice to any other ..... applicability when the impugned action is per se arbitrary, perverse and demonstrably irrelevant to the object of the act. as noticed earlier, the impugned orders are per se arbitrary, perverse and are based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations which have no nexus with the object of the act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-11-1993
Reported in : 49(1993)DLT724; 1993(26)DRJ23; 1993RLR258
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, after the courts of the Addl. Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal have held by concurrent judgments that the petitioner, on the facts of the case, was not entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1957, (for short 'the Act') and was hit by terms of the proviso thereto.(2) It is an admitted fact that the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, had availed of benefit of section 14 (2) of the Act, and it was admittedly a case of second default. There is no denial of the fact that notice of demand had been served by the landlords/respondents, and received by the petitioner/tenant. There is also no denial of the fact that at the time the notice was received, there had been a default in the payment of rent for preceding three consecutive months. It is also admitted that rent only of one month was sent by money order, after receipt of the notice and during ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-1993
Reported in : AIR1994Delhi112; 51(1993)DLT334; 1993(27)DRJ144
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners mainly seek the following reliefs:- 1.Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD' for short) under section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'DMC Act') and those issued by the New Delhi Municipal Committee ('NDMC' for short) under section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act ('PM Act' for short) as extended to Delhi, on the properties situated within their respective areas; 2.A writ in the nature of direction or order declaring that the words 'be precluded from objecting to any assessment made by the Commissioner in respect of such land or building of which he is the owner or occupier' appearinginsub-section(3)ofsection 131 of the Dmc Act are unconstitutional, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice; and 3.A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the municipal authorities (MCD and NDMC) to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-16-1993
Reported in : 1993(25)DRJ556; 1993RLR268
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) Plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant from enforcing any order of re-entry and especially the one passed in June, 1983 and also from interfering with the peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit property.(2) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are owners of the property bearing No. 54, Motia Khan Dumb Scheme New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises'. Shri Niyamatullah, plaintiff no.2 is the constituted General Attorney of the plaintiff and is authorised and competent to file the present suit and to sign and verify the plaint.(3) It is alleged in the plaint that by an agreement for lease dated November 22, 1962, the defendant, as the Lesser had agreed to demise the land of the suit premises to one Shri Krishan Chand Ohri and by an agreement of hypothecation dated November 23, 1965, Shri Kishan Chand Ohri had entered into an agreement with one Sardar Joginder Singh for the construction of a multi-stor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-08-1993
Reported in : AIR1994HP126
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner-landlord has come up in revision under Section 16(8) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (Act No. 25 of 1987) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an order passed by the Rent Controller (4), Shimla on 14th August, 1992 dismissing his petition seeking eviction of tenant-respondent under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act. 2. On 21st August, 1990, a petition under Sub-section (2) of the Section 15 was filed by the petitioner seeking tenant's eviction from the upper flat No. 27/1, Boileauganj, Shimla, comprising three rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine and a glazed verandah. It was alleged that the petitioner was due to retire from the post of State Vocational Guidance Officer in the Labour and Employment Directorate of the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 31st July, 1991. The petitioner being a 'specified landlord' within the meaning of word as defined in Section 2(i) of the Act, was entitled to seek respondent's evic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-15-1993
Reported in : AIR1994HP71
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. The three revision petitions, though arising out of separate orders passed by appellate authority(I), Shimla and also arising out of separate eviction proceedings can conveniently be disposed of by a common order, since questions of law and fact arising are almost same and similar.2. Civil Revision 65 of 1992. This civil revision has arisen out of eviction petition preferred by late Darshan Singh Kochhar, who is now represented by his son Satwant Singh Kochhar, in which eviction of the Girls Industrial Training School, located in a part of the Willow Bank building. The Mall, Shimla was sought. The ground for eviction as made out in the petition was that the entire building has become very old. It has outlived its utility and life. The premises in question as well as the other portion of the building Willow Bank in occupation of the other tenants are required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building, which building and re-building c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-06-1993
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT437
ORDERD.J. Jagannadha Raju, J.1. This CRP is filed against the order dated 12-7-1990 in RCA No. 10 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal. The facts leading to the filing of the present CRP are somewhat strange and appalling.2. The revision petitioners are the tenants. They originally took the premises on rent from the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent one Mr. Dhanraj. Rents were being paid upto 1980 to late Dhanraj. After Dhanraj died, disputes arose and then RCC No. 45 of 1981 was filed. It is the claim of the present revision petitioners that as the landlords were refusing to receive rents, they filed RCC 31 of 1981 and that they went on depositing the rents. It was ultimately found by the Court that Mr. S.S. Parvaiz, the advocate who was appearing for the present revision petitioners, deposited only a few amounts and he appears to have misappropriated various amounts that were said to have been paid to him. Ultimately he ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-20-1993
Reported in : 49(1993)DLT491; 1993(25)DRJ92
Arun Kumar, J.(1) This is a suit for possession of Property No.11, Communality Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The tenant has not been paying any rent for years. It neither wants to vacate the premises nor it wants to pay anything towards rent. It claims that these privileges are conferred on it by the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,1985. The case is a glaring example of abuse of the provisions of the said Act. (2) Vide lease deed dated 25th November,1981, the defendant company took on lease the suit property comprising of ground floor, first floor, basement, loft and mezzanine floor and projector on a monthly rent of Rs.29,686.00 . The lease deed is dated 25th November,1981 and was registered with the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi onllthMarch,1982. The plaintiff has filed the plan of the property comprised in the tenancy of the defendant. The lease deed was initially for a period of three years w.e.f. 1st March, 1982 and contained an option for the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-09-1993
Reported in : 1993(3)BomCR714
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. This writ petition raises an important question as to whether an order passed on the basis of a compromise can be challenged in an appeal before the District Judge under section 25 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as `the Hyderabad Rent Control Act' for the sake of brevity.2. In Rent Control Case No. 2 of 1990 praying for eviction of the tenant from a hall admeasuring 20' x 20' which is part of House No. 5-10-30 situated at Samadhan Colony in Augrangabad city, a compromise was filed and recorded on 11-1-1991. On the basis of this compromise, the learned Rent Controller, Aurangabad was pleased to pass an order on 10-2-1992 directing the eviction of the tenant petitioner from the disputed premises. This order came to be challenged before the learned District Judge, Aurangabad in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 1992 and he was pleased to hold that the appeal is not maintainable and, consequently, dismissed the appe...
Tag this Judgment!