Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1980)16CTR(P& H)45; [1980]125ITR152(P& H)
B.S. Dhillon, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Income-tax References Nos. 110 and 111 of 1979. The said references pertain to assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, respectively.2. The common dispute involved in both the references relates to the estimate of the gross annual letting value of building No. 349/13, situate at Mall Road, Amritsar. The building is said to have been constructed in the year 1938. For the years under consideration, the assessee declared the gross annual letting value of the building at Rs. 6,000 each but the ITO valued it at Rs. 12,000. The AAC, in appeal, confirmed the gross annual letting value at Rs. 12,000, as estimated by the ITO. The assessee filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal. The contention raised on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal was that in view of the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the assessee could not charge more than the fair rent determined under the provisions of the said Act and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1960P& H11
G.L. Chopra, J.1. The only point of law involved and referred for decision of the Bench in these two petitions for revision (No. 392-D of 1954 and No. 537-D of 1958) is as follows:'Whether in a suit, otherwise within the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, the jurisdiction of such Court is ousted by the defendant raising the question of the fixation of standard rent according to the provisions of Act No. XXXVIII of 1952, because such a question cannot be decided and disposed of by a Court of Small Causes, and the course open to the Court of Small Causes is to return the plaint for presentation to a proper Court, which will of course be a Court under Act No. XXXVIII of 1952'?(2) In C. R. No. 392-D of 1954, a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, Rs. 683/3/-, was instituted by the landlord in the Small Causes Court, Delhi, on 23rd December, 1953. One of the defence taken by the tenant was that the rent claimed was more than the standard rent and a prayer for the standard rent being ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1986P& H119
D.S. Tewatia, J.1. Doubt as to the correctness of law laid down by the Division Bench in M.P. Bansal v. District Employment Officer (Civil Revision No. 2262 of 1981) decided on Mar. 16. 1985, reported in AIR 1985 Punj & Har 251, entertained by a Division Bench, led to the reference to Full Bench of three Civil Revision Petitioners, namely, No. 1108 of 1983 at the instance of the Division Bench itself and Nos. 2202 of 1982 and 3063 of 1984 by J. V. Gupta, J. in the wake of the said earlier reference order by the Division Bench.2. Before the examination of the relevant legal queries that arise in regard to the law laid down in Bansal's case (AIR 1985 Punj & Har 251) a brief resume of the facts of the three revision petitioners would help in viewing the said legal queries in proper perspective.3. In Civil Revision No. 1108 of 1983, Shri Hari Mittal, Advocate, tenant-pet, had taken on rent House NO. 1278, sector 18-C, Chandigarh, on 21-11-1969, at a time when he was employed as a District ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2003)135PLR250
Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner is a tenant on an industrial Plot in Chandigarh. Respondents have filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) in the year 1999. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, a Notification was issued by the Chandigarh Administration which reads as under:GOVERNMENT OF INDIAEXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITYCHANDIGARH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2002(KARTIKA 16, 1924 SAKA)FINANCE DEPARTMENTNOTIFICATION THE 7th NOVEMBER, 2002No. l985-UTFI(l)2002/9055 - in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 read with the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Extension to Chandigarh) Act,1974 (Act No. 54 of 74) and the Govt. of India's notification No.5.0.22(5) dated 8th January, 1950., the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is pleased to direct that the provisions of the aforesaid Act shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2004]136STC261(P& H)
Hemant Gupta, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 17178, 17188, 17696, 18898, 19073, 19132 and 20031 of 2003, 207 and 4415 of 2004 as all these cases involve similar question of law consequent to enactment of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, w.e.f. April 1, 2003. However, for facility of reference, the facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 17178 of 2003.2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short 'the HGST Act') and is engaged in the business of purchase of paddy. For the assessment year 1998-99, the Assessing Authority framed the assessment under the HGST Act and raised an additional demand on account of purchase tax calculated under Section 6 of the HGST Act. The petitioner filed appeal along with an application under Section 39(5) of the HGST Act for entertaining the appeal without prior payment of tax on account of financial hardship on March 3, 2003. However, before the appeal filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by petitioner-tenant, is to the order dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure P1), whereby the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Gurgaon has dismissed the two applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as the applications had been filed on the ground that the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, had been made applicable to the area where the suit property is situated w.e.f. 02.06.2008 and as such, the same could not effect the litigation already initiated. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mansoor Khan Vs. Moti Ram Harbhajan Kharat AIR 2002 SC 2396. An earlier application had also been dismissed on 05.08.2010 and the proposed amendment in the preliminary objection No.5 could not be allowed as it would lead to framing of a new case and controvert the admission made in para No.6 of the amended written statement. The respondent-landlady filed a civil suit on 25.07.2007 (Annexure P9) for poss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1962P& H369
(1) Shri Sarup Singh and his sons brought a petition for ejectment of Messrs. Allen Berry Company(Calcutta) Private Limited, and Messrs. South Asia Industries Private Limited, from premises No. 5 Block M, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. While the case was pending, Messrs Allen Berry Company (Calcutta) Private Limited went into liquidation and its name was therefore, struck off the record. Messrs South Asia Industries Private Limited then made tow applications-one on the 10th of November, 1960, and the other on the 19th of November, 1960, alleging that the name of the tenant having been struck off the record the application of the landlords for ejectment of Messrs South Asia Industries Private Limited, who were merely sub-tenants, could not proceed as the case had ceased to be one between a landlord and a tenant. These applications were rejected by the Rent Controller. An appeal against this order was filed by Messrs South Asia Industries Private Limited but the same was dismissed on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2000)125PLR388
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed by Nanak Chand and two others (hereinafter described as 'the petitioners') directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Karnal, dated 7.6.1990. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and instead passed an order of eviction against the petitioners with respect to the shop in dispute. The petitioners were granted a month's time to vacate the premises.2. The relevant facts are that respondent Bal Kishan had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioners with respect to the shop in dispute. It was asserted that Nanak Chand, petitioner No. 1, is a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. He was running the business of tyre and tube repairs. Respondent Bal Kishan had purchased the shop from Smt. Notani Bal on 27.12.1978. The grounds of eviction pressed were that petitioner No. 1 had not p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)149PLR801
K.C. Puri, J.1. Vide this judgment, I intend to dispose of R.S.A. Nos. l876 of 1984, 3498 of 1985 and 18 of 1986, titled above. However, facts are being extracted from R.S.A. No. 3498 of 1985.2. The brief facts of the case are that one Dhanpat Singh, plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration for declaring sale deeds dated 13.3.1981 and 26.5.1981 as illegal, void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff and in the alternative he sought possession of the suit land. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of land measuring 3 kanals 6 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 717 situated in the area of village Premgarh and land measuring 6 Kanals 9 Marias bearing Khasra No. 5122/2138 situated in the area of Sutehri. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 17 were joint owners in possession of land measuring 24 Kanals 2 Marias situated in village Sutehri and land measuring 18 Kanals situated at village Premgarh as detailed fully in the plaint. They orally partitioned the j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1972P& H317
1. On 9th November, 1956 vide rent note, Exhibit P-2, Banarsi Dass took a shop, situate in Faridabad, District Gurgaon, on rent from Jag Mohan son of Jai Narayan for a period of 11 months @ Rs.4/- per month. The tenancy was to commence from 1st November, 1956. Even after the expiry of the period of tenancy the tenant remained in possession of the property and continued paying rent to the landlord. On 5th January, 1959, another rent note, Exhibit P-1, was written by the tenant in favour of the landlord and this was also for 11 months and at the same rate of rent, namely, Rs.4/- per mensem. Banarsi Dass, subsequently, died on 14th December, 1965. On 11th April, 1966, a notice was issued by the landlord to his legal representatives asking them to vacate the premises, because the tenancy in favour of Banarsi Dass had come to an end and they were occupying the shop as mere trespassers, and in case, they did not do so, they would have to pay Rs.100/- per month as damages for use and occupati...
Tag this Judgment!