Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-24-1996
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)551; 62(1996)DLT451; 1996(37)DRJ548
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 15, 1993 passed by Shri K.S.Gupta, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which inter-alia upheld the order passed by Shri P.D.Gupta, Additional Rent Controller striking out the defense of the appellant under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for not making payment/deposit in compliance with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act.(2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Filed petition for eviction on the ground of non payment of rent which was being contested by the appellant. On April 1, 1991 respondent filed an application on the allegations that an order under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed against the appellant on 2nd November, 1989 for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.250.00 per month with effect from March 1, 1987. On the application filed for withdrawal of rent it was reported that the appellant deposited only a sum of Rs.8250.00 by way...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-15-1996
Reported in : 1996IIAD(SC)117; AIR1996SC2951; JT1996(4)SC479; 1996(4)KarLJ540; 1996(2)SCALE197; (1996)3SCC55; [1996]2SCR663; 1996(1)LC682(SC)
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. These are tenant's appeals.2. Prem Chand Jain, who is since dead and is now represented by respondent No. 1, had filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Delhi, for the eviction of the appellant from the premises No. XI/4239-A, Raj Kishan, Jain Street, Municipal Ward No. XI, Darya Ganj, Delhi, on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting. This petition came to be tried by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, who passed an order on 24th March, 1971 under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Act') requiring the appellant to deposit all the arrears of rent due for the period from 1.6.1970 within one month from the date of the order and to deposit the future rent also at the rate of Rs. 200 p.m. every month by the 15th of each succeeding month after adjusting an amount of Rs. 800 which, admittedly, was received by Prem Chand Jain as part of the arrears of rent.3. While the proceedings were pending/before the Addi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-12-1996
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)576; AIR1996SC966; 1996(1)ALT33(SC); JT1996(1)SC234; 1996(4)KarLJ103; 1996(1)SCALE298; (1996)3SCC75; [1996]1SCR439
ORDER1. The petitioners are challenging the constitutionality of Explanation II to Section 2(22) and Section 76 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 (30 of 1987) (for short, 'the Act') in this writ petition, apart from other provisions of the Act challenge to which is decided in other connected matters. In this case we confine our consideration to the validity of the above provisions. It is contended in the writ petition and argued by Shri R. Venugopal Reddy, their learned senior counsel, that ryotwari pattas having been granted under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion in Ryotwari) Act (37 of 1956) (for short, 'the Inams Abolition Act') and the same having attained finality, the legislature is devoid of power under the Act to set at naught the effect of the grant of ryotwari patta to the archakas, service holders or employees covered under the Act by a legislative side-wind. It is their case that by gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-26-1996
Reported in : 63(1996)DLT577
C.M. Nayafr, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of three appeals S.A.O- Nos. 202181, 212181 and 13190 as they raise common questions of law The first two appeals arise out of judgment dated September 17, 1979 of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, and judgment dated May 7, 1981 passed by Rent Control Tribunal. (2) The respondent filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on August 21, 1978 for eviction of the appellants from one big room, two small rooms, verandah, part of open terrace in front etc. forming part of the tenancy premises on second floor, plot No. 27, House No. 4779, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The allegations were made that Kishori Lal, since deceased, was tenant under the respondent in respect of the above said premises since July 18, 1953 at rental of Rs. 771- per month, but has neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent within two months from service of notice dated December 18, 1977. The petition f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-06-1996
Reported in : 1997(4)ALLMR50; (1997)99BOMLR425
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The present appellants are the heirs of the original defendant and the present respondents are the heirs of the original plaintiffs. The original plaintiffs filed a suit against the original defendant being Civil Suit No. 30/69 before the Court of the Civil Judge S.D., Panaji. The suit was filed under Decree No. 43525 of the Portuguese Rent Legislation then applicable to the area where the suit house was situated. The cause of action insofar as the Plaintiffs were concerned was that the Defendant had failed to deposit the rent reserved and further the rent had also not been paid on time. The original Plaintiffs in paragraph 14 of the plaint claimed an amount of Rs. 8,665.32 on various counts as arrears of rent. The original Defendant contested the claim of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant contended that there was another proceeding between the parties which was disposed by judgment and decree dated 22.12.63 by making some observations. The said observations though plead...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-26-1996
Reported in : 1996(1)CTC620; (1996)IIMLJ96
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in C. No. 239 of 1982, on the file of this Court, is the appellant. Plaintiff therein is the respondent.2. For the sake convenience, in this appeal parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.3. Plaintiff filed the above suit for the following relief:-(1) for specific performance of the contract for sale of the house and premises No. 106, Harrington Road, Madras-31 and in default direct the office of the Hon'ble Court to have the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff; (2) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the house and premises No. 106, or reliefs this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper; and (4) for costs of this suit'.4. The suit was filed on 22.4.1982, on the following allegations:-The schedule property admittedly belongs to the appellant and the same was taken on lease by Needle Industries (India) Ltd., for accommodating the office -cum-residence of its director and Secretary, and he came to occupy th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-24-1996
Reported in : (1996)IMLJ453
ORDER1. Originally the revision was filed by the landlords in R.C.O.P. No. 7 of 1985, viz., petitioners 1 and 2 herein. Pending disposal of the revision, first petitioner died and his legal representatives, namely, petitioners 3 to 5 have been brought on record as per Order in CM.P. No. 84 of 1996 dated 19-1-1996. The said R.C.O.P. was filed before the Rent Controller, Udumalpet.2. The material averments in the eviction petition are as follows :--The schedule building originally belonged to one Srinivasa lyeugar and Janaki Animal, who executed a possessory mortgage in favour of one Jagannatha Iyengar. That was dated 12-10-1949. The mortgagee came into possession. On 11-1-1968, the mortgagee inducted Chinnappa Gounder as a tenant of the building. He is the predecessor of respondents 1 and 2 in this case. He was doing business along with one Kuttappan who lived in the back portion of the schedule premises. He is dead and the third respondent is claiming as his legal heir.3. It is seen th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-01-1996
Reported in : 66(1997)DLT359; 1996(38)DRJ66
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) In a suit based on landlord-tenant relationship, the appellant has been ordered to be evicted from the suit premises. The defendant has come up in appeal. (2) It is not disputed that the plaintiffs- respondents are owner-landlords of the premises known as N-97, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. The defendant- appellant has been a tenant in the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 14,000.00 . The tenancy runs from month to month, parallel to English calendar month. By notice dated 10.7.1993 the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy of the defendant w.e.f. 31.8.1993 calling upon it to vacate the premises. The notice was replied to. On 3.12.1993, the defendant sent an amount of Rs. 14,000.00 to the plaintiff No.2. This amount was in the form of a bank draft dated 3.12.1993 and accompanied by letter dated 3.12.1993 sent through registered post. The suit for ejectment was filed on 3.1.1994. It was contested by the defendant -appellant mainly on two grounds : firstly, that the notice t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-23-1996
Reported in : 1996RLR189
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) [ED. facts : Appellants had leased out suit premises to respondents 1 to 4 by means of lease deed dt. 30.5.57. who had sub-let portions of premises per consent in deed. Alleging that some portions have been unlawfully sub-let in 1965 & 1969 to respdt, 5, they obtained permission u/S 19 of Slum Areas Act on 4.6.70 and sued respdt. for eviction u/S. 14(i) (b), (c) & (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Respdts. 1 to 4 alone contested and filed separate w/Ss contending that they had not sub-let any portion to respdt 5 and they had sub-let same to one MK. Bhatia who had done unlawful sub-letting to respdt. 5 and that they have applied for permission to sue respdt. 5. They also alleged that one Manak Chand was co-owner and co-landlord. Respdt. no. 5 also took the same position contending that Manak Chand was necessary party and in his absence it was a case of partial eviction. Reply of three appellants was that partition had taken place between them and Manak Chand and respdts. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-09-1996
Reported in : 62(1996)DLT313
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) I had the advantage of reading the opinion of my learned Brother K. Ramamoorthy. I am in respectful agreement with the conclusions reached by brother Ramamoorthy that all the appeals and writ petitions deserve dismissal. In his judgment Brother Ramamoorthy has dealt with various aspects of the matter in great detail as also the decisions cited before us. Considering, however, the gravity of unauthorised construction and misuse and numerous cases which come up before Courts seeking injunction relating to such constructions, I would notice few salient facts of these cases. (2) The unauthorised construction and unauthorised user of residential building for commercial purposes in Delhi has gained alarming proportions and crossed all limits. At the very outset I may state that these activities are against the interests of the Society at large and need to be dealt with firmly. (3) The common questions of fact and law are involved in these batch of writ petitions and app...
Tag this Judgment!