Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-14-1994
Reported in : AIR1995SC985; JT1995(1)SC142; 1994(5)SCALE295; (1995)1SCC356; [1994]Supp6SCR603; 1995(1)LC603(SC)
ORDERSuhas. C. Sen, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is against an order passed by the Delhi High Court on 5th September, 1989, declining to interfere with an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 30th May, 1989.3. The appellant, Smt. Kamla Devi, is the owner of Shop No. 408, Pandit Lila Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. The shop was let out to the respondent, the respondent defaulted in payment of rent. The appellant sent a demand notice on 18.5.1981 upon the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent. The respondent neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent within the period of two months after the service of the demand notice. On or about 2.8.1982, the appellant filed an edition petition under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It was admitted in the written statement that rent was due from 1st January, 1980. On 27th January, 1984 the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, passed an order to the following effect:I direct the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-19-1994
Reported in : JT1994(7)SC114; 1994(4)SCALE613; (1995)1SCC104; [1994]Supp4SCR539
..... a rental value higher than a prescribed limit should be taken outside the purview of the rent control act, since these are used by the relatively affluent tenants. in such cases higher rental incomes derived from the property would be subject to various taxes, and there was no need to artificially depress these incomes by application of rent control act.12. subsequently the recommendations made by the secretaries' committee were examined by the ministry and thereafter the decision was taken to amend the delhi rent control act.13. in the statement of objects and reasons, the purpose of the amendment by the delhi rent control (amendment) act, 1988 was stated as under:the delhi rent control act, 1958 (59 of 1958) which came into effect on 9th ..... more than rs. 3,500/- per month by way of rent, were being removed from the protective umbrella of the rent act. only thing that has to be seen for the purpose of deciding the class of tenants, who were being excluded from the ambit of the rent act, was the exact amount of monthly rent that was being paid on the relevant date i.e. 1.12.1988. there is no pre-condition of fixation of standard rent before application of the provisions of section 3(c) of the act.62. in the judgment under appeal, it has been held that the provisions of section 3(c) will not be applicable to the cases which were pending before the court. no argument .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-28-1994
Reported in : 1995IAD(Delhi)239; AIR1995Delhi154; 1995(32)DRJ41
Swatanter Kumar, J.(1) The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. l,10,000.00 with costs and future interest. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the Principal of Government Senior School, and, at the time of institution of the suit, was working in Government Co-educational Senior Secondary School, Issapur, Delhi. The plaintiff, along with one Ishwar Dass Mahajan, had taken on rent the premises bearing No. F-122, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs. 350.00 exclusive of electric and water chargers vide lease deed dated 27th May, 1964 from the defendant.' The lease deed dated 27th May, 1964 provided the terms and conditions which were to govern the relationship of the landlord and the tenant. Clause (f) of the lease deed reads as under :- 'NOT to use the said premises or any part thereof for any purpose other than for residence or for school but in case of opening any school, not to take any third person or other person(s) as partner(s) a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-09-1994
Reported in : JT1994(5)SC49; 1994(3)SCALE712; (1994)5SCC465; [1994]Supp2SCR495
S. Mohan, J.1. The facts leading to the civil appeal are as under:2. One Ahmedi Begum was the owner of 'Dharampur Lodge' situated near clock Tower, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. She leased out the entire property to S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar. The lease was for a period of 5 years evidenced by registered lease deed dated 12th April, 1948. On expiry of the said lease another lease dated 3rd April, 1953 was executed for a further period of 5 years which was also duly registered.3. Both these lease deeds empowered the lessee S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar to sub let the whole or a part of the demise property. S Sardul Singh Caveeshar sub-let various portions of the property to several subtenants. One such sub-letting was in favour of the appellant, Manphul Singh Sharma in April, 1948 and another portion to Yog Raj Goswami in August 1956.4. On 1st of September, 1956 the tenant S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar by a registered lease deed sub-let the entirety of the property in favour of Surinder Kumar Sharma. That...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-20-1994
Reported in : 1995IAD(Delhi)356; 57(1995)DLT131; 1995(33)DRJ178
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order proposes to dispose off the following preliminary issue No.2 :- ' Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit in view of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act?'(2) The plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction of the defendant/tenant, impleading the sub-tenants also invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court on the ground that the premises are fetching monthly rent exceeding Rs. 3,500.00p.m. and so the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) are excluded. The contention of the tenant, on the other hand is that in so far as he and the landlord-plaintiff are concerned, the agreed rent of the premises does not exceed Rs. 3,500.00 and so Section 3(c) of the Act would not apply, the rent paid or payable by the sub-tenant to the tenant being irrelevant for the purpose of determining the applicability of the Act to a suit between a landlord and a tenant.(3) Vide registered deed of lease dated 5th January, 1978 the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-15-1994
Reported in : AIR1995Ori95; 1995(I)OLR132
Nanavati, C.J.1. Divergent opinions expressed by this Court on the question whether a proceeding for eviction is maintainable before the House Rent Controller, even after the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (for short, 'the Act') ceased to be in force, has made it necessary for this larger Bench to consider that question. The Uma-kant Pradhan v. S.D.J.M.-cum-House Rent Controller, 69 (1990) CIT 207, this Court held that the House Rent Contoller would have no jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding for eviction initiated after the expiry of the Act. The reasons given for taking that View of are that under Section 1(4) of the Act read with Section 5 of the Orissa General Clauses Act what is saved in an acquired or accrued right and not a mere possibility of acquiring a right; that the right which the landlord gets under Section 7 of the Act, either because of default in payment of rent or on any other ground for eviction mentioned therein is merely a right to approach the House Rent C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-11-1994
Reported in : AIR1995HP87
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. This is defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree passed on 15th December, 1988 by the Additional District Judge, Solan dismissing their appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on 7th December, 1985 by the Senior Sub-Judge, Solan decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following questions of law:1. Whether the appellants who were residing with Rattan Chand and Bhagwanti Devi at the time of their death are entitled to inherit the tenancy rights under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987?2. Whether the appellants were trespassers in the premises and the decree for possession passed by Civil Court is sustainable in law?2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.3. The plaintiffs claimed a decree for possession by way of ejectment of defendant-appellants from a residential premises comprising two rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine, verand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-31-1994
Reported in : AIR1994SC1775; 1994(2)ALT(Cri)173; 1994(2)BLJR912; [1995]82CompCas103(SC); 1994CriLJ2269; 1994(1)Crimes892(SC); 1994(46)ECC255; 1994(70)ELT12(SC); JT1994(1)SC290; 1994(3)SCC440
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The salient and indeed substantial legal question which looms for determination in this appeal may be formulated as follows :Whether a Magistrate before whom a person arrested under Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1973 which is in pari materia with Sub-section (1) of Section 104 of the Customs Act of 1962, is produced under Sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, has jurisdiction to authorise detention of that person Under Section 167(2) of the CrPC ?2. As a preclude to the judgment, we would like to state that though the appellant in the present case has been arrested under Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'FERA') and taken to the Magistrate under Sub-section (2) thereof, we while disposing the legal questions posed for determination, are inclined to deal with the corresponding provisions under the Customs Act also f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-30-1994
Reported in : AIR1995AP189
ORDER1. There were two suits, one for specific performance of contract by The purchaser and the other for ejectment and arrears of rent by the landlady. The purchser was the tenant and the vendor was the landlady. The suit for specific performance of contract was dismissed, but the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was decreed Accordingly both the appeals are by one and the same person, but in different capacities of purchaser and the tenant. Similarly the respondent in one appeal is also the respondent in the other appeal, but in different capacities of vendor and the landlady. In this state of affairs and for the sake of convenience, the appellant in both the appeals shall hereafter be also described as the 'purchaser-tenant' or as the 'tenant-purchaser'; and the respondent in the two appeals shall be described as the 'vendor-landlady' or as the 'landlady-vendor'.2. The suit property is a double storeyed house. It was and is owned by the respondent in both the appeals. The first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Nov-15-1994
Reported in : (1995)LC736Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals are directed against the impugned Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur.2. Factual Backdrop : It was the case of the Department that the officers of the DRI, New Delhi, assisted by the Customs and Central Excise Officers of Kanpur, searched the residential premises of the appellant on 3-9-1973 at 7 A.M. and recovered 41 pieces of primary gold bars of foreign origin and 8 pieces of gold (Bithur) in the presence of Shri Ram Niwas Sharma and Shri Shree Ram Agarwal, and also in the presence of two panch witnesses, namely, Shri Prem Chand Sharma and Shri Bankey Lal, as detailed out in the panchnama/recovery memo, said to have been prepared on the spot. It was alleged that the appellant, Shri Shiv Charan Bajpai, was also present on the spot, but he slipped away from the house when some photographs of the contraband gold, as recovered above, were being taken and accordingly FIR to that effect was lodged at 11.20 A.M. with the Police Station,...
Tag this Judgment!