Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-14-2002
Reported in : 2002(6)BomCR29; (2002)4BOMLR41; 2002(4)MhLj568
..... 26, 1957, the respondents moved thehigh court of punjab in revision under section 35 of thesaid act. while revision petition was pending in thehigh court, the delhi rent control act, 1958 came intoforce. it repealed the act of 1952, but made some of theprovisions of the repealed act applicable to certainpending matters. one of the questions in that appeal waswhich of the provisions of the new act would apply to thepending cases. while considering this question, thesupreme court was ..... delhi and ajmer rentcontrol act, 1952, in so far as it isapplicable to the union territory of delhi, ishereby repealed. (2) notwithstanding such repeal, allsuits and other proceedings under the said actpending, at the commencement of this act,before any court or other authority shall becontinued and disposed of in accordance withthe provisions of the said act, as if the saidact had continued in force and this act hadnot been passed: provided that in any such suit orproceeding for the fixation of standard rentor for the eviction of a tenant from anypremises to which section ..... suit was validly institutedon 4.2.1980, the goa rent control act came to be extendedto the area in which suit house is situate on 23.12.1980i.e. during the pendency of the suit and section 59(2)of the said rent control act emphatically saved thejurisdiction of the civil court with respect to the civilsuits instituted before extension of the said rentcontrol act to the area in which suit house falls. thelearned counsel for the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-05-2002
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2304; 2003(3)KarLJ505
..... to the issue. in that case the supreme court considered section 57 relating to repeal in delhi rent control act, 1958. the said section reads as follows:'57(1) the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, insofar as it is applicable to the union territory of delhi, is hereby repealed.(2) notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said act pending at the commencement of this act before any court or other authority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 this act had not been passed: provided that in any such suit or proceeding for the fixation of standard rent or for the eviction of a tenant from any premises ..... in regard to a premises to which that act applied. the period of limitation for filing a revision had not expired as on 31-12-2001 when the old act was repealed. the matter did not fall under section 70(2) of the new act, for the reasons stated in the decision of this court in jain cloth stores case, supra. therefore, having regard to section 70(3) of the new act, read with section 6(c) and (e) of the gg act, the petitioners-tenants became entitled to enforce the remedy against the order of eviction by filing a revision petition, under section 50 of the old act as if the repealing act had not been .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-18-2002
Reported in : 2002IIAD(Delhi)261; 95(2002)DLT508; 2002(61)DRJ457; 2002RLR149
..... court in issac nina (supra), we are of the view that sections 4, 6 and 9 of the delhi rent control act, 1958, dealing withdetermination and fixation of standard rent, which have not taken into account the huge difference ..... 12. the control of rents and evictions, which were initiated in the wake of partition and population explosion in delhi, served a salutary purpose in the then prevailing situation. over the years the restrictions and limitations imposed andcontinued by various rent control legislations, namely, the new delhi house rent control order, 1939; the punjab urban rent restriction act, 1941; the delhi rent control ordinance, 1944; the ajmer-mewar control of rent and eviction order,1946; the delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act 19 of 1947; and delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act 38 of 1952, the delhi rent control act, 1958, have curtailed the growth of housing in general and rental housing in particular. evenamendment of the delhi rent control act, 1958 by act ..... rent would be the standard rent. but in case the basic rent of the premises per annum exceeds rs. 600/-, the basic rent together with ten per cent of such basic rent would be the standard rent. sub-section (1)(a)(2) of section 6 deals with the standard rent of residential premises which have been let out at any time on or after june 2, 1944 in respect of which rent has been fixed under the repealed delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act, 1947 (19 of 1947),or the repealed delhi and ajmer rent control act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-05-2002
Reported in : 2002(4)MPHT360; 2002(3)MPLJ504
S.S. Jha, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No. 10 of 1982 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 19-6-82 passed by Third Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior.2. Objection is raised by the respondents as to maintainability. The appeal was finally heard and decided on 4-9-96 [1997(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 255]. After its decision an application for restoration was filed as some of the respondents were not served and appeal came up for hearing. After restoration of appeal the case was listed again and objection is raised that in view of amendment in Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure this appeal is not maintainable. This appeal is filed against that order.3. It is to be examined whether the appeal is now maintainable in view of amended Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure came into force w.e.f. 1st July, 2002. Section 100A is reproduced below:--'100A. No further appeal in certain cases.-- Notwithstand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-12-2002
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2088; 2002(2)KarLJ292
Kumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. All the appellants are tenants except the appellant in W.A. No. 62 of 1999 is a Charitable Trust. However, all the appellants challenge the constitutional validity of Section 2(7)(b)(iii) and (iv) and the Explanation thereto of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 17th of December, 1997 disposed of a batch of writ petitions upholding the constitutional validity of the impugned sections.3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge these writ appeals have been filed.4. These writ appeals appear to be an exercise in futility since the introduction of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The Rent Act received the assent of the President on 22nd day of November, 2001 (Karnataka Act No. 34 of 2001). It was published in the Gazette on 27th of November, 2001 and came into force by a Notification dated 5-12-2001.5. Section 70 of the Rent Act repeals the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1961), Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-08-2002
Reported in : 2002IVAD(Delhi)432; 97(2002)DLT687
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian the grievance of the petitioner, namely Smt. Reeta Sahney, is that she has been unfairly and illegally passed over for the allotment of residential accommodation in the campus of Gargi College (Respondent No. 2). It is her contention that she is the senior most in the teaching faculty of Gargi College, having been in the service of the College for almost 35 years. Her grievance is that she has been denied allotment on the specious ground that she owns residential property within a radius of ten kilometres from the College and stand disentitled under the College Scheme. Attention has been forcefully drawn on her behalf to a notice dated 7.11.1991 calling upon the members of the staff to furnish an affidavit stating that - 'I or may spouse do not own a house or has acquired one and/or power of Attorney arrangements within a radius of 10 Kms. from the College.' Mr. Varma Learned Counsel for the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-20-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Bom456; 2002(6)BomCR409; (2002)3BOMLR892; 2002(3)MhLj666
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This Civil Revision Application arises out of an order passed by the Small Causes Court on 11th February, 2002 in three Revision Applications. The three Revision Applications sought to impugn an order passed by the Small Causes Court, dismissing three interim notices which were taken out on behalf of the Applicant herein, raising objections to the execution of the decree for eviction under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. Briefly stated, the factual background of the case is that a suit for eviction came to be filed in the year 1990 by the landlord and eviction was sought on the ground, inter alia, of a change of user and of subletting, these being statutory grounds which were available under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit for eviction was decreed on 21st December, 1996 both on the ground of change of user and of subletting. The appeal which was filed by the Applicant was dismissed on 25th February, 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-10-2002
Reported in : 2003(4)CTC657
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, by consent of parties, both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common order.2. The petitioners in W.P.No.4248 of 2001 are the students of the first respondent college namely K.K.College of Pharmacy, Saligramam, Chennai. The said college is functioning from the academic year October 1992. Initially it was approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu and was recognised by the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi under the provisions of Pharmacy Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pharmacy Act') to impart education in Bachelor of Pharmacy course. In view of the enactment of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'AICTE Act'), the said college was approved by the Council constituted under the said Act from the year 1994 and was affiliated to Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, and there was no approval from the Pharmacy Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-13-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC1357; 2002(1)ARBLR768(SC); 2002(50)BLJR768; [2002(2)JCR97(SC)]; JT2002(3)SC43; (2002)2MLJ186(SC); 2002(2)SCALE594; (2002)3SCC705; [2002]2SCR404
S.N. Variava, J.1. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 25th April, 1988.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellant claims that by Registered Deed of Settlement dated24th April, 1954 the land was settled in favour of one Dev NarayanPrasad. On 19th February 1955, by virtue of Section 3(1) of the BiharLand Reforms Act, the land vested in the State of Bihar. The Appellantclaims that the State has been receiving rent from the said DevNarayan Prasad. On 9th February, 1962 the said Dev Narayan Prasadsold the said land to the Appellant by a registered Sale Deed.3. On 18th May, 1979 a notice was issued to the Appellant underSection 3 of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act. The Appellant repliedto the Notice. Whilst these proceedings were pending, on 16thJanuary 1982 a Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the said Act). This wasfollowed by a Declaration under Section 6 on 25th May, 1982. TheAppellant filed a claim under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-01-2002
Reported in : 100(2002)DLT519
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Main question involved in this petition is whether notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is illegal and invalid because of its being not served within the year to which it related as contemplated under Section 126 of the Act and secondly imperative conditions of service under Section 444(1)(d) of the Act having not been complied with.2. The respondent No. 1 took the suit property on lease from DDA in 1979 for a premium of Rs. 14,795/-. He started construction on the said plot of land in 1980. It is also not in dispute that the said property was put to residential use only. A notice under Section 126 of the Act was issued by the petitioner proposing to enhance the rateable value of the said property from Rs. 2,520/- to Rs. 37,800- w.e.f. 1.4.1980 on account of erection of building on plot. The cost of the land was assessed at Rs. 1,600/- per sq. metre existing in the year 1980 on the basis that for differen...
Tag this Judgment!