Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-07-2009
Reported in : 2010(1)BomCR189; 2009(6)MhLj906
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner tenant before this Court is challenging the judgment dated 18/2/2005, delivered by the learned 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2003 and prays for dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 589 of 2001 filed by respondent landlord before the Civil Judge, Senior Judge, Akola. In that suit, eviction of the petitioner and possession was sought under Section 15 & 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola on 02/5/2003 decreed the suit partly and directed the petitioner tenant to handover the possession within two months. It decreed the suit only on the ground that his bona fide need was proved by the respondent landlord.2. In Regular Civil Appeal No. 190/2003, filed by the present petitioner, a cross objection or Counter appeal was filed by the landlord seeking entire relief as per plaint prayers. The learned 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Akola, found that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-15-2009
Reported in : AIR2009SC2649; 2009(3)AWC2740(SC); 2009(57)BLJR2083; 2009(6)BomCR413; 2010(I)OLR(SC)452; 2009(5)SCALE559; (2009)6SCC99; 2009(6)LC2774(SC); 2009AIRSCW4075
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Effect of the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') by reason of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (for short 'the 2005 Act') insofar as therein Section 23 has been omitted is the question involved herein.3. The said question arises in the following factual matrix.The property in suit was owned by one Govinda Singh. He purported to have executed a Will in favour of his son, the appellant herein on 29.11.1995. His wife Sakunthala Bai predeceased him. The said Govinda Singh died on 9.01.1996 leaving behind the appellant (original defendant No. 1) and four daughters, viz., Geetha and Vijaya (plaintiffs) and Shanthi and Uma (original defendant Nos. 2 and 3).Indisputably, the parties to the suit were residing in the premises in suit. Govinda Singh was also a government contractor. He was running a business of transport. His daughters were also partners in the firm. Inter alia on the premise that Govinda Singh died intest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-17-2009
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3502
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.1.2009 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. of the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner submitted that the earlier the suit filed by the plaintiff-landlord was returned for proper presentation on 21.12.1999 against the plaintiff approached this Court and this Court remanded the matter back to the learned District Judge and the learned District judge disposing of the appeal filed by the plaintiff on 1.11.2004 directed that if valuation of the suit si reduced below Rs. 50,000/- by waiving of claim of arrears of rent by Rs. 7,000/-, the suit in question may been entertained by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the said suit originally filed on 19.8.1995 was again filed by the plaintiff waiving his claim of arrears of rent by Rs. 7000/- and thus amended suit registered on 1.11.2004 as suit No. 23/2004 - Mohan Lal v. Ram Lal was instituted in the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-21-2009
Reported in : 2009(6)MhLj875
R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by tenant is directed against concurrent findings of the learned Civil Judge and the District Judge that the petitioner failed to pay arrears of rent, permitted increases, taxes and other service charges and thereby incurred ejectment under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.2. The litigation has chequered history. The petitioner is admittedly a tenant in respect of a godown situated at Municipal House No. 168 in Ward No. 64 at Akola, owned by the respondent. The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the landlord, his brother and two others, namely Nitin Kumar and Jagdishchandra. This suit bearing No. 808/1997 was for an injunction to restrain the landlords from obstructing the tenant's way to the godown. It was decreed on 10.07.1998. On 3rd January, 1999, the landlord sent notice stating that the tenant was in arrears of rent, demanding payment of arrears for a period from Diwali of 1998 to Diwali of 1999 @ Rs. 296.25p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-11-2009
Reported in : 160(2009)DLT350
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The applications for interim relief in both suits are for consideration. The plaintiffs in both suits are the same. The sole defendant in the first suit (CS(OS) No. 1894/2008) is the defendant No. 2 in the second suit (CS(OS) No. 46/2009).2. The first suit has been filed for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell of 15th September, 2005 of shop No. 6-A Khan Market, New Delhi. It is inter alia the case of the plaintiffs that Shri M.R. Kukreja, father of the sole defendant in the first suit (hereafter called owner) was the owner of the said shop; on his demise on 9th December, 1986 the shop devolved on his wife Smt Sheela Devi; on demise of Smt Sheela Devi on 5th May, 1991 the owner inherited the said shop on the basis of her Will; that the owner applied for probate of the said Will which was granted vide order dated 10th May, 2005; that the owner approached the plaintiffs to sell the said shop and after detailed negotiations an oral agreement of sale ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-28-2009
Reported in : (2010)157PLR345
Surya Kant, J.1. This revision petition is directed by the land' lord whose eviction petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to the Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') filed against the respondent-tenant has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated 22.9.2008.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of residential house No. 1148, Sector 36-C, Chandigarh since 2.3.1994.The petitioner was a member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and retired on superannuation on 31.10.2004 in the rank of Secretary to the Union of India.3. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, in exercise of its powers under Section 2 (5) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'POTA 2004') issued a notification dated 26.5.2005, constituting a Review Committee for completing the review of pending cases under th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-16-2009
Reported in : 2009(6)MhLj598
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Respondent waives service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.2. By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners pray that this Court should quash and set aside the orders dated 22nd September 2005, 7th April 2008 and 24th September 2008.3. The Petitioner is the Original Respondent in Eviction Application No. 12 of 2004 which was on the file of the Competent Authority, Konkan Division. That Application has been filed by the Respondent seeking eviction of the Petitioner from the premises on the grounds, which are more particularly enumerated in the Application.4. The Respondent filed this Application invoking Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.5. In terms of the relevant statutory provisions, the Petitioner - Respondent applied for necessary leave to defend. The Competent Authority granted leave to defend on 28th July 2004. Thereupon, the written statement was filed after which the proceedings...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-14-2009
Reported in : 2009(6)BomCR164
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties.2. Original plaintiff has filed this Writ Petition challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Adhoc Additional District Judge whereby he set aside the decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffpetitioner.3. The facts are as follows:Petitioner-plaintiff is the owner of the two godowns at Peth Jogithana Umred. They bear house No. 24 and 25. Part of both the godowns were let out to one Kantilal Thakkar. The rent was Rs. 50/and 60/for the two godowns. The defendants are the heirs of said Kantilal who died about 10 years ago. The tenancy is monthly and begins on 1st day of each English Calender month. Both these godowns according to petitioner are very old they having been constructed more than 100 years ago. Since the time they were so constructed they were never repaired. The wooden rafters of the godowns have gone very week and have in fact broken down. The slab of the godown No. 1 has dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-08-2009
Reported in : (2010)157PLR413
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.5878, 6038, 7922, 8515, 8886, 14858 of 2003, 9142, 9155, 9181, 11502 and 11637 of 2004, as all the writ petitions seek same relief of quashing of proceedings for acquisition of land initiated in pursuance of notification dated 13.8.2001 under Section 4 and notification dated 9.8.2002 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act').2. Case set out in CWP No. 5878 of 2003 is that the writ petitioners purchased land adjacent to Hotel Bristol and DLF Gymkhana Club in Gurgaon in 1990. Acquisition proceedings were earlier initiated vide notification dated 5.10.1984 under Section 4 of the Act, which were challenged by filing CWP No. 1470 of 1985. During pendency of the. writ petition, the acquisition proceedings were withdrawn and the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous on 1.5.2000.3. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated vide impugned notifications. The stated purpose for acquisition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-08-2009
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR589
R.C. Chavan, J.1. This revision is directed against dismissal by the learned District Judge of applicant tenant's appeal against order passed by the learned Judge Court of Small Causes rejecting his application Exh. 63 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint.2. Facts relevant for deciding this revision are mostly not disputed. The respondent landlord applied to the Rent Controller for permission to issue quit notice to the applicant tenant under the C.P. and Berar Rent Control Order. Such permission was granted on 10.01.1997. On 16.07.1999, the landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No. 239 of 1999 for recovery of arrears of rent from 01.09.1996 to 31.07.1999. In the said suit on 18.01.2001 tenant's application for depositing rent was allowed. On 31.03.2000 the Maharashtra Rent Control Act came into force repealing C.P. & Berar Rent Control Act and Order. On 08.01.2001 the landlord issued quit notice to the applicant terminating his tenancy and filed t...
Tag this Judgment!