Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-07-2019
..... in malpe vishwanath acharya (supra) and the kerala high court in issac nina (supra), we are of the view that sections 4, 6 and 9 of the delhi rent control act, 1958, dealing with determination and fixation of standard rent, which have not taken into account the huge difference between the cost of living in the past and the present ..... 12) scc753 the court held that such threshold for protection was not rational, as it was based on insufficient data. interestingly, the court noticed that before introduction of the amendment the executive had not collected sufficient material, whereas in d.c. bhatia (supra), the concerned report had suggested `1500/- as the limit for applicability of rent control law; however, after deliberation, that limit was revised to `3500/- per month.46. time and again, the courts have stressed that rent legislation: be it in respect of control of premises for letting, or in regard to fixation of standard rent ..... rent control act by the various state legislatures, the legal relationship between the landlord and tenant was governed by the provisions of the transfer of property act. delhi rent control act provided protection to the tenants from drastic enhancement of rent by the landlord as well as eviction, except on certain specific grounds. the legislature by the amendment act no.57 of 1988 has partially repealed the section 3 (c) of the delhi rent w.p.(c) 516/2010 & connected matters page 52 of 66 control act. this is a case of express repeal. by amending act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-27-2019
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.2428/2015 & CM APPLs. 4371/2015 & 12669/2016 Judgment reserved on 30 November, 2018 Judgment pronounced on 27 August, 2019 ........ Petitioners Through : Mr. S.N. Chaudhri and Ms. Shruti Chaudhri, TEK CHAND NARULA AND OTHERS versus Advocates. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, Mr. Krishna Kumar, and Mr. Siddharth Jha, Advs. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. R.N. Vats, Standing Counsel & Mr.Akshat Gupta, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.:1. The petitioners, who are the progeny of one Daulat Ram Narula, have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail, essentially, the misuse charges and damages for unauthorized construction sought to be levied by the respondents qua property described as 1/90, P Block, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as property). 1.1 Portions of the property were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-31-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :16. 05.2019. Date of Decision :31. 05.2019 IN THE MATTER OF: + RC.REV. 72/2016 and CM APPL. 4199/2016 (Stay) RAJESHWAR DAYAL ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Mukul Kumar and Mr. P.D. Sharma, Advocates versus PREETI GUPTA ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ravish K. Goyal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.1. The present proceedings instituted under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act) assail the impugned order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the ACJ/CCJ/ARC, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in E-118/2013 whereby the application of the petitioner/tenant seeking leave to defend was dismissed and consequently an order of eviction of the petitioner/tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act was passed qua the tenanted premises i.e, shop on the ground floor of property bearing no.530, Chatta Hingamal, Chotta Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. R.C.Rev.72/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-23-2019
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d August, 2019 + CM(M) 1229/2019 and CM Appl. 37697/2019 BHAGWAN DASS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate (M:98689. 5967). versus USHA TYAGI ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) CM Appl. 37698/2019 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM(M) 1229/2019 And CM Appl. 37697/2019 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge in an appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 wherein leave to amend the written statement by the... Petitioner-Tenant was rejected.3. The background is that a petition under Section 14D came to be filed by Smt. Usha Tyagi before the Rent Control Tribunal. The property in question is property bearing No.WZ-41, Basai Dara Pur New Delhi-110015. Ld. counsel submits that the... Petitioner herein was g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-05-2019
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3793 OF2016VINOD KUMAR APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ASHOK KUMAR GANDHI RESPONDENT(S) With C.A. No.8972-8973/2017, C.A.No.6063 of 2019(arising out of SLP(C) No.19965/2017), C.A.No.6064 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.20414/2017), C.A.Nos. 6066-6072 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.20735- 20741/2017), C.A.No.6073 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.22383/2017), C.A. No.16916/2017 and C.A.No.6075 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.28455/2017) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals, except one where leave to defend was granted, have been filed against the judgment of Delhi High Court dismissing the Rent Control Revisions filed by the appellants in which the order passed by the Rent Controller rejecting the 2 application filed by the appellants-tenants seeking leave to defend in a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 have been challenged.3. The appellants are ten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-27-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RC.Rev. 130/2018, CM APPL.13337-13338/2018 & CM APPL185722018 Judgment reserved on :28.08.2018 Date of decision :27. 09.2019 M/S JAINSON Through: Ms. Neha Kapoor, Advocate versus .....Petitioner SANJAY GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Sonali Chopra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J.1. The petitioner vide this petition assails the impugned order dated 30.1.2018 of the Rent Controller, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in RC ARC No.39/2017 vide which the eviction petition filed by Sh. Sanjay Gupta, the petitioner thereof and arrayed as the respondent to the present petition seeking eviction of the tenant M/s Jainson i.e., the petitioner to the present petition, from the tenanted premises E-2(Old Municipal No.8250), , Gopinath Building, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi admeasuring 550 Sq.ft shown in red in the site plan annexed to the petition on the ground of bona fide re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-16-2019
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7295 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.8343 OF2019 STATE OF ODISHA & ANOTHER PETITIONER(S) VERSUS ANUP KUMAR SENAPATI & ANOTHER RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.7298 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.29313 OF2018 CIVIL APPEAL NO7301OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.32409 OF2018 CIVIL APPEAL No.7296 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.16964 OF2018 CIVIL APPEAL No.7297 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.17416 OF2018 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) No.22309 OF2019ARISING OUT OF CIVIL APPEAL No.7304 OF2019DIARY NO.31807 OF2018 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 72997300 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NOS.3111031111 OF2018 CIVIL APPEAL No.7302 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.4261 OF2019 AND2CIVIL APPEAL No.7303 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.6708 OF2019 ARUN MISHRA, J.JUDGMENT1 The question involved in the appeals is whether the employees are entitled to claim grantinaid as admissible under the Orissa (Non...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-22-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7477 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.13697 OF2016 RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS .....APPELLANT(S) THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1)2) The legality and validity of an order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh1 on February 26, 2003 is subject matter of consideration in the present appeal. Vide aforesaid order, 19.26 standard acres of land in Village Poppalguda, District Ranga Reddy was allotted to the appellant by the CCLA (as a delegatee of the Central Government) as balance of verified claim of 43.7 standard acres of land. Some facts would be necessary to appreciate the contention raised by the parties. One Parsram Ramchand Malani, father of the appellant, was resident of Sindh in the present-day Pakistan and 1 for short, CCLA 1 after partition, came to settle in Hyderabad. The father of the appellant asserted tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-13-2019
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.8588 of 2019 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15804 of 2017]. REPORTABLE Rojer Mathew Appellant(S) VERSUS South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. Respondent(S) WITH W.P.(C) No.267/2012, W.P.(C) No.279/2017, W.P.(C) No.558/2017, W.P.(C) No.561/2017, W.P.(C) No.625/2017, W.P.(C) No.640/2017, W.P.(C) No.1016/2017, W.P.(C) No.788/2017, W.P.(C) No.925/2017, W.P.(C) No.1098/2017, W.P.(C) No.1129/2017, W.P.(C) No.33/2018, W.P.(C) No.205/2018, W.P.(C) No.467/2018, T.C.(C) No.49/2018, T.C.(C) No.51/2018, T.P.(C) No.2199/2018 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, CJI1 Leave granted. BRIEF BACKGROUND:2. In the present batch of cases, the constitutionality of Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 and of the rules framed in consonance has been assailed. While it would be repetitious to reproduce the pleadings of each case separately, a brief reference is being made, illustratively, to the prayers made in three matters to aid t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-17-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h January, 2019 * % + In Re: CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY ....... Petitioner the J.M. Kalia, Advs. O. REF. No.2/2016 Through: Mr. for petitioner. Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae). CORAM:-"HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) has made this Reference under Section 57 of the Stamp Act, 1899 seeking a decision on the following issue: Whether the notification no.13 of 25-12-1937 extending benefit of remission in stamp duty in case of subsidiary companies as applicable in the then province of Delhi has any continuous validity and applicability in view of notification No.GSR894dated 30-09-1958 by which the central government extended the Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1958 replacing the previous and then prevalen...
Tag this Judgment!