Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1986)(8)LC207Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Madras has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order in appeal No. 136/82 (M) dated 12-4-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. In column No. 3 of the memorandum of appeal the date of service has been mentioned as 12;4-1982. The appellant had moved an application for amendment of the appeal and has requested for making the amendment to the effect that the date had been wrongly written as 12-4-1982 against the correct date of 27-4-1982. By a separate order dated 20-2-1986, the amendment of the appeal was allowed to the effect that para No. 3 of form E. A.3 should be read as 27-4-1982. In terms of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the appeal was to be filed within three months. By virtue of the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order No. GSR 597(E), dated 11-10-1982 the appeal could have been filed within six months. The appellant has filed an application for condonat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1981RLR164
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The appellants were the tenant of the respondent in the disputed premises situated at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. One of the terms of the lease dt. 17.9.53, was as follows : 'THATthe lessee shall not be entitled to sublet or part with possession of the premises without the written permission of the landlady provided that the lessee shall have the right to allow the use of the premises to their sister or associate concern, the liability of the lessee to pay to the landlady covenated rent thereforee remaining absolute.' (2) The respondent landlady on 9.3 1972, filed an eviction petition on the ground that the tenant had sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the tenanted premises to M/s Associated Traders and Engineers(P) Ltd., without her written consent. The case of the tenant was that M/s. Associated Traders and Engineers(P) Ltd., were their associate or a sister concern and they were using the premises with express written permission of the landlady ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(105)DRJ358
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The appellant, which is a private limited company, is the owner and landlord of property bearing No. 54, Janpath, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The respondent herein, namely, Bank of India, was inducted as a tenant initially on 21.4.1962 in respect of the basement and ground floor of the suit property. Further portions of the property were also let out to the respondent in stages. Particulars of all the leases and the portions let out thereby are as under:S. No. Particulars Terms of Lease Portions let outof Lease1. Lease deed 25 years with effect 3100 sq.ft on the ground dated 21.4.62 from 12.5.1961 with a floor and 3100 sq.ft inclause for renewal the basement @ Rs.3,833/- p.m.2. Lease deed 10 years with effect 1200 sq.ft. on the back portiondated 9.5.68 from 18.4.1966 of the first floor @ Rs.2,700/- p.m.3. Oral Lease W.e.f. 20.2.1970 Front portion of the first floor@ Rs.2,700/- p.m.4. Oral Lease - 500 sq.ft. on the first floor@ Rs.1,125/-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :9. h February, 2015 Judgment delivered on :13th February,2015 % CS(OS) 623/2010 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Plaintiff Through: Mr. Suryakant Singla with Mr. Shanto Mukerjee, Advocates Versus MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Through: .Defendant Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff Surendra Kumar Gupta against his brother Mukesh Kumar Gupta. It is a suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits/damages and for injunction.2. The plaintiff had purchased half undivided share in House No.E-262, Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi from Smt. Kamla Kundra vide sale deed dated 18th December, 1974. This is a registered document. It is stated to be the self acquired property of the plaintiff. It is on a plot of land admeasuring 250 square yards upon which initially there was one and a half storeyed building built upon it.3. Devinder Nath Gupta, half broth...
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 : 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 : ILR1969Delhi127
Inder Dev Dua, J.(1) This appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is directed against an order of remand made by the learned Rent Control Tribunal on 12-3-1968 after allowing the appeal of Shri Hans Raj Taneja and Smt. Raj Dulari from the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 14/9/1967 dismissing their application for eviction of the tenant who is the appellant in this Court. The learned Rent Controller disallowed the plea of a bona fide requirement on the ground that the application for eviction did nto contain an averment or allegation that the landlords seeking ejectment for their bona fide requirements, were the owners of the premises in question. I need nto go into the toher ground on which also the eviction order was claimed and which was repelled. (2) On appeal, the learned Rent Control Tribunal, following a decision of this Court, in which it was observed that the statutory requirement of the petitioner being the owner of the premises from which evicti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001VAD(Delhi)43; 92(2001)DLT97
ORDERA. K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of possession in respect of Premises No. 9283 & 3089 (old) - N-1 And N-5/2 (New) in the property known a 'N' Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi (hereinafter to be called as 'suit property' for short).2. While the suit is pending adjudication, this is No.14256/92 has been filed by the plaintiff seeking direction to the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs for wrongful use and occupation of the premises in question with further direction to the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month as damages till the disposal of the suit. For determining the issue involved in this IA, it would be appropriate to have a glance at the pleadings.3. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property which was purchased by the plaintiff in an open auction dated 16th March, 1961 by the Ministry of Rehabilitation through Chief Settlement Commissioner, Department of Rehabilitation (Now Ministry of Home Affairs). T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1988(14)DRJ113
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This is landlady's Revision Petition against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing her eviction petition on 8/11/1983.(2) The premises in question are the Ground Floor of property No. 254, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The respondents are the tenant. A lease deed was created in favor of the tenant under Section 21 for three years with , effect from 14-7-1975. After the expiry of this lease, a fresh lease was created in favor of the tenant. The rent was raised from Rs. 1900.00 to Rs. 2300.00 per month. According to the tenant this increase was made as a new lease was created for residential-cum-commercial purposes and the tenant was permitted to have his sales office in the premises. According to the landlady the new lease was only for residential purposes as before.(3) The landlady is a qualified Doctor by profession and was in Government service. After her retirement from service in 1972 she was residing at Dehradun. She developed severe ArthrIT is in both her knee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 114(2004)DLT691
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 14th January, 2004 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal' ), whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the landlord to withdraw his suit for eviction under Section 14(i)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.2. The facts of the case are that two petitions were filed by Smt.Krishna Dwivedi under Section 14(i)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against Surinder Kumar and Pawan Kumar with respect to tenanted premises No. 248, Sant Nagar, New Delhi - 65. Both petitions were taken up together and disposed by a common order dated 28th September, 2002, of the Additional Rent Controller (for short 'the Controller'), wherein the Controller has passed an order of eviction directing the landlord to rebuild the premises within four months and in default thereof, to pay Rs.10,000/- per month by way of compensation. Being aggrieved of this order of the Controller, both the parties filed appeals before the Tribunal....
Tag this Judgment!