Court : Delhi
Reported in : 34(1988)DLT395
D.P. Watihwa, J. (1) The appellant Was defendant in the suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits filed by the respondents/plaintiffs who are two in number. (2) The suit was filed on 14.9.1972. The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Ram Sarup-husband of the defendant was tenant in respect of one room and a Kotha in house bearing No. 4820, Phatak Namak, Hauz Qazi,Delhi,at a monthly rent of Rs. 18.00 . Tenancy of Mr. Ram Sarup was stated to have been terminated with effect from 31.1.1969. Since, as alleged, he did not surrender the tenancy he was merely a statutory tenant. It is stated that some time in January, 1971, Mr. Ram Sarup surrendered possession of the Kotha and promised to surrender possession of the room as well. But he died on 9.11.. 1971 leaving behind the defendant as his widow. The plaintiffs, thereforee, filed the present suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the defendant. The defendant denied that she a was statutory tenant and stated that earlier t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR313; [2005]141STC119(P& H)
Viney Mittal, J.1. In these petitions, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of orders passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Range)-cum-Revisional Authority, Ambala (respondent No. 2).2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts from C.W.P. No. 15749 of 2004.Petitioner-Hindustan Construction Company Limited, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-company') is engaged in the business of construction and claims to have its area of operation across the entire country. In the State of Haryana, it is duly registered as a dealer under the provision of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act') and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') and is being assessed by Assessing Authority, Yamuna Nagar. For the assessment year 1998-99, the petitioner-Company had returned a gross turnover of Rs. 20,65,04,077/-. as per the return, tax liability of the petitioner-Company was Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1973Delhi265; 9(1973)DLT267
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) On facts stated below, two questions arise for decision, namely :- (1)If a tenant (whose contractual tenancy has already been terminated) dies during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding for his eviction filed by the landlord, is the landlord entitled to a decree or order for the possession of the premises against the legal representatives of the deceased tenant in the same proceeding? and (2) In what circumstances can such a decree or order be challenged as being without jurisdiction by the said legal representatives in the executing court?(2) The landlord respondent Vijay Kumar field a suit against his tenant Kidar Nath Malhotra for arrears of rent and eviction on February 18, 1955 under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereafter called the 1952 Act). But the tenant died even before he was served wit htbe summons of the suit. The landlord alleged that he had already terminated the contractual tenancy of Kidar Nath who had, thereforee, become only a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 113(2004)DLT424; 2004(76)DRJ412
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner is a perpetual lessee of premises bearing Office No. 2, First Floor and Servant Quarter 113 and 115, Atma Ram Mansion (Scindia House), Connaught Circus, Janpath, New Delhi which was given on lease to respondent No.1, a nationalised bank. The petitioner terminated the lease vide a legal notice dated 17.8.1991 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice was replied to by respondent No.1, the bank on 8.9.1991 alleging that the premises in question are covered by the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PP Act') and claiming that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') are not applicable. Respondent No.1 thus refused to vacate the premises.2. The petitioner thereafter issued a notice dated 13.9.1991 to respondent No.2, Secretary, Ministry of Finance asking for the appointment of an Estate Office...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1973CriLJ512; ILR1972Delhi189
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) The short question for determination as contained in the referring order is as to whether the Controller functioning under the provisions of Act 59 of 1958 is a Court within the meaning of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This judgment will, along with the reference dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 45 of 1971.(2) The petitioner has moved this court under section 561(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings pending against him before respondent No. 2. The allegations in the petition are that having obtained the permission of the competent authority the petitioner-landlord applied for the eviction of his tenant Hari Chand and obtained the eviction order dated the 4th of December, 1968, against which the appeal taken to the Rent Control Tribunal was dismissed on the 9th of February, 1970. He then took out execution proceedings. Hem Chand, respondent No. I to this petition along with hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3580; 93(2001)DLT164(SC); JT2001(7)SC477; 2001(5)SCALE509; (2001)8SCC397
Misra, J.1. Leave granted.2. It is unfortunate, an eviction petition which was filed on the 13th September 1985 still the parties are battling to find which court would have the jurisdiction. Whether the court of Rent Controller under Delhi Rent Control Act or ordinary Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter in issue? As discipline and culture in every walk of life is essential for smooth functioning in all its activities, similarly judicial culture and discipline has to be followed in order to achieve the desired result viz. to give litigant justice in the shortest period of time. Every legislation legislates for the benefit of its subject but many a times, raising issues for every thing and stretching it too long percolates the very objective for which it is made. With the increasing complexities of laws coupled with faulty legislation, using inappropriate language, a stress is created which the courts through its judicial interpretations have been attempting to simpl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT590
Hardyal Hardy, J. (1) This second appeal has been filed by a tenant whose eviction has been ordered from a small loom described as a servant quarter and an open court-yard in a (2) The respondents had purchased bungalow No. 49 on Hanuman Road, New Delhi in 1958. At the time of purchase ey gto vacant possession of the entire bungalow except a small room described as a servant quarter and an open Court-yard which was in occupation of the appellant who claimed to have been in possession of the said portion of the property for the last 30 to 35 years, as according to him his father was an employee of the previous owner. The respondents who were Joint owners of the said bungalow with their father (since deceased) started living in the bungalow immediately after it was purchased by them. On the evidence that has been accepted by buth the Courts below, the respondents' family consisted of 18 or 19 members. Although the bungalow appears to be a fairly commodious one, the respondents sought evi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999(49)DRJ342
Usha Mehra, J.1. Property bearing No.D-922, New Friends Colony, New Delhi was let out to respondent No.1 i.e. M/s International Amusements Ltd. (in short IAL) on a monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- vide registered lease deed dated 1st April,1987. On expiry of the lease period, petitioner herein let out the property to respondent No.1 vide registered lease deed dated 1st April,1990 on a monthly rent of Rs.16,500/-. Respondent No.2 Shri Sharat Chander Dass was the Director of respondent No.1. Hewas in occupation of the suit premises on account of being the Director of respondent No. 1. The petitioner wanted possession of the suit premises, thereforee, filed a suit against respondent No. 1 after the expiry of the lease period. Decree of possession was passed in her favor and against respondent No.1, its servants, agents and employees etc. vide decree dated 26th May,1993. Pursuance to that decree petitioner filed execution proceedings and obtained warrants of possession. Respondent No.2 filed obj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3923; [2000]99CompCas383(SC); JT1999(8)SC66; 1999(6)SCALE441; (1999)9SCC334; [1999]Supp3SCR461
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.The Facts:1. These three appeals raise three different questions relating to the construction and interpretation of Section 85 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 'new Act' for short) which contains repeal and saving provision of the three Acts, namely, the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the 'old Act' for short) the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (the 'Foreign Awards Act' for short).2. This Section 85 of the new Act we reproduce at the outset:85. Repeal and saving - (1) The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 (6 of 1937), the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) and the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (45 of 1961) are hereby repealed.(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, -(a) the provisions of the said enactments shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings which commenced before this Act came into force unless otherwise agreed by the parties but this Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1975Delhi236
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Civil Writ Petition came up initially for hearing before B. C. Misra J. who considered that it should be heard by a larger Bench. The Civil Writ Petition then came up before a Division Bench consisting of V. S. Deshpande and H B. C. Misra JJ. who referred it to a Full Bench. Although the Division Bench framed certain questions, which will be referred to later, for consideration by the Full Bench, the counsel arc agreed that the entire Writ Petition has been referred for being heard and decided by the Full Bench. (2) The Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner. M. v. Soi, praying that certain orders passed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee assessing the annual value of the petitioner's house for purposes of house-tax for the year 1963-64. 1964.65 ?'J 1965-66 be quashed. The respondents to the Writ Petition are (1) The New Delhi Municipal Committee, and (2) Shri S. C. Vaish, Additional District Magistrate, Delhi. (3) It is necessary at this st...
Tag this Judgment!