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 : 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Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) and the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (45 of 1961) are hereby repealed.(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, -(a) the provisions of the said enactments shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings which commenced before this Act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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC4; 1984(2)SCALE650; (1985)1SCC1; [1985]1SCR1025; 1985(17)LC422(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. This Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958) (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act'), filed by the Appellant against an order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controller, Delhi, on an application filed by the Respondent on the ground specified in Section 14A(1) of the Act.2. The Appellant was the ten7ant of the Respondent in respect of premises situate at 3474, Gali Kartar Singh, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, consisting of one room and two tin sheds at a rent of Rs. 10.50 per month excluding water, electricity and other charges. Prior to January 1975, the Respondent was an employee in the Posts and Telegraphs, Audit and Accounts Department of the Government of India, and in January 1975 he was sent on deputation to the Union Public Service Commission. He retired ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC302; (1976)4SCC535; [1977]1SCR731
M.H. Beg, J.1.This appeal by special leave is directed against the unanimous decision of a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court. The case before us arose from a Writ Petition filed by the respondent, M.N. Soi, praying that certain assessment orders, together with the order under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act III of 1911, passed on 11th February, 1966, by an Additional District Magistrate of Delhi relating to the house of the petitioner at 15, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, modifying assessments on appeal, be quashed. The respondent landlord submitted that assessment for purposes of rating, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(1 )(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act III of 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and, in particular, the interpretation of the words 'may reasonably be expected to be let from year to year', impose upon the assessing authorities the obligation not to assess at a higher rental value than the 'standard rent'. It is not disputed that standard rent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2006)144PLR802; 2006(11)SCALE108
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.Background facts:2. Appellants are tenants in the premises situated within the Union Territory of Chandigarh. They were protected in terms of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the 1949 Act'). The Administrator of Chandigarh in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 3 of the 1949 Act issued a notification dated 07.11.2002 whereby and whereunder it was directed that the provisions thereof would not apply to the buildings; monthly rent whereof exceeded Rs. 1,500/-. Aggrieved by issuance of the said notification, Appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, questioning the vires of Section 3 of the 1949 Act as also the validity of the said notification dated 07.11.2002 on diverse grounds. The said petitions have been dismissed. These appeals arise for the said judgments and orders. Before adverting to the questions involved in these appeals, we may notice the legislative...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1305; [1964]4SCR647
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 392 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 13, 1962, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench at Delhi) in Civil Revision No. 427-D of 1957. Bishan Narain, O. C. Mathur, Ravinder Narain and J.B.Dadachanji for the appellants. A.V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. K. Jain, for respondent 1. S. N. Andley, for respondent No. 2. August 29, 1963. The judgment of S. K. Das, Acting C.J. and M. Hidayatullah, J. was delivered by S.K. Das Acting C.J. Sarkar J. delivered a dessenting opinion. S. K. DAS, Acting Chief Justice.--With much regret, we have come to a conclusion different from that of our learned brother Sarkar, J. as respects the true scope and effect of S. 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Control Act of 1958. The Control Act of 1958 repeals the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, hereinafter called the Control Act of 1952, in so far as that Act was applicable to the Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1781; JT1995(4)SC187; 1995(3)SCALE197; (1995)3SCC709; [1995]3SCR817
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. The short question which falls for consideration in the present appeal is whether on the coming into operation of the notification on 26th October, 1983 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the three applications made by the tenant for relief under the Act survive or not.The relevant facts are that the suit premises were governed by the Act till 29th December, 1983. On 4th February, 1983 and 13th February, 1983, the respondent-tenant filed variously three applications, viz., (i) R.C.15/83 for direction to permit him to deposit rent in the court (ii) R.C. 16/83 for fixation of fair rent and (iii) R.C. 17/83 to prevent inconvenience. The State Government issued notification dated 29th December, 1983 exempting w.e.f. 26th October, 1983 from all the provisions of the Act, among others, buildings wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC985; JT1995(1)SC142; 1994(5)SCALE295; (1995)1SCC356; [1994]Supp6SCR603; 1995(1)LC603(SC)
ORDERSuhas. C. Sen, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is against an order passed by the Delhi High Court on 5th September, 1989, declining to interfere with an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 30th May, 1989.3. The appellant, Smt. Kamla Devi, is the owner of Shop No. 408, Pandit Lila Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. The shop was let out to the respondent, the respondent defaulted in payment of rent. The appellant sent a demand notice on 18.5.1981 upon the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent. The respondent neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent within the period of two months after the service of the demand notice. On or about 2.8.1982, the appellant filed an edition petition under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It was admitted in the written statement that rent was due from 1st January, 1980. On 27th January, 1984 the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, passed an order to the following effect:I direct the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIAD(SC)117; AIR1996SC2951; JT1996(4)SC479; 1996(4)KarLJ540; 1996(2)SCALE197; (1996)3SCC55; [1996]2SCR663; 1996(1)LC682(SC)
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. These are tenant's appeals.2. Prem Chand Jain, who is since dead and is now represented by respondent No. 1, had filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Delhi, for the eviction of the appellant from the premises No. XI/4239-A, Raj Kishan, Jain Street, Municipal Ward No. XI, Darya Ganj, Delhi, on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting. This petition came to be tried by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, who passed an order on 24th March, 1971 under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Act') requiring the appellant to deposit all the arrears of rent due for the period from 1.6.1970 within one month from the date of the order and to deposit the future rent also at the rate of Rs. 200 p.m. every month by the 15th of each succeeding month after adjusting an amount of Rs. 800 which, admittedly, was received by Prem Chand Jain as part of the arrears of rent.3. While the proceedings were pending/before the Addi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(7)SC114; 1994(4)SCALE613; (1995)1SCC104; [1994]Supp4SCR539
Suhas C. Sen, J.1. This appeal has been heard along with a number of other appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions. Common questions of law have arisen in all these matters relating to interpretation and constitutional validity of Section 3(c) of the Rent Control Act, 1958.2. The Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended by Act No. 52 of 1988 came into effect from 1.12.88. Section 3(c) of the amended Act provided that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act will not apply to any premises whose monthly rent exceeded Rs. 3,500/-.3. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the validity of the newly inserted Section 3(c) of the Act. The appellant's writ petition was heard along with a batch of other writ petitions. By a judgment dated February 11, 1991, the Delhi High Court held that Section 3(c) was a valid piece of legislation and did not contravene any of the provisions of the Constitution. Following its judgment in Civil Revision No. 4...
Tag this Judgment!