Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)2MLJ477
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Both these revisions are against the same judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Coimbatore. C.R.P. No. 3299 of 1991 is filed under Section 25 of the Rent Control Act, and the other Revision, namely, C.R.P. No. 489 of 1992 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The material facts may be summarised as follows:Revision petitioner is the landlord of the building. There was an earlier proceeding between the same parties for immediate demolition and reconstruction of the building which was then in existence. Even at the time when the present respondent was a tenant of the then building, he was occupying an area of 736 sq. ft. eviction petition filed by the revision petitioner was allowed, and the respondent herein filed a Rent Control Appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also confirmed the order, and a revision taken to this Court also met with the same fate. Later, the respondent herein filed a Special Leave...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R. C. Rev. No. 75/2012 Date of Decision:21. 12.2012 TARUN PAHWA ....Petitioner Through: Mr. M.L. Pahwa, Adv. Versus ...Respondent PRADEEP MAKIN Through: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Sec. 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order passed by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. 25/2010, decided on 23.11.2011; whereby the Ld. ARC has allowed the application filed by the respondent for leave to defend the eviction petition.2. Briefly stating the facts, the petitioner herein is the landlord of the suit premises i.e. one hall on the ground floor, forming part of property no. 25/8, B-11, Gali No. 7, New Rothak Road, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, New Delhi 110005. The respondent is a tenant in respect of the suit premises, under the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 638/- excluding other charges. The suit premises were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)551; 62(1996)DLT451; 1996(37)DRJ548
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 15, 1993 passed by Shri K.S.Gupta, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which inter-alia upheld the order passed by Shri P.D.Gupta, Additional Rent Controller striking out the defense of the appellant under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for not making payment/deposit in compliance with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act.(2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Filed petition for eviction on the ground of non payment of rent which was being contested by the appellant. On April 1, 1991 respondent filed an application on the allegations that an order under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed against the appellant on 2nd November, 1989 for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.250.00 per month with effect from March 1, 1987. On the application filed for withdrawal of rent it was reported that the appellant deposited only a sum of Rs.8250.00 by way...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(1)Raj192
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. Two ancient maxims viz; (1) Judicis est jus dicere non dare: The judge's duty is to declare law and not to make it and (2) Talis interpretation semper fienda est, ut euitetur absurdum el inconveniens, et ne judicium sit illusorium: That interpretation must be chosen which avoids an absurdity or inconvenience and which does not make a decision of court illusory, are coupled with the controversy involved in the present seventeen writ petitions, whereby the Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, hereinafter referred-to as 'the New Act' in toto and Section 32(3)(a) of this New Act and Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, later styled as 'the Old Act', have been challenged by declaring them as ultravires to the Constitution of India. Though different reliefs have been sought in these petitions but broadly, they are of three categories.The relief sought in the first set of petitions is to declare the Ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR3109
ORDERVenkataraman, J1. The petitioner has filed this Petition for quashing the order dated 18.4.95 in HRC/DC/A-152-1994-95 passed by the second respondent and for a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction declaring that order dated 14.3.95 passed by the third respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable and to consider the matter afresh by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence before it in HRC/ACC(E) 274/94 and proceed with the case thereafter.2. The facts giving rise to this Petition in brief are as hereunder: The Revenue Inspector attached to the office of third respondent, House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Bangalore, gave a report dated 23.8.94 to the effect that the premises bearing No. 544, Ground Floor, First Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore, had fallen vacant. The Controller issued a notice to the petitioner-landlord to show cause as to why the vacancy was not reported. The petitioner by his reply dated 30.8.94 while admitting that the premis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 18(1980)DLT36
Harish Chandra, J.1. The petitioner is a landlord who filed an eviction petition against the respondents on 7th April, 1979 on the ground covered by clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The need was based on the forthcoming retirement of the petitioner on 31st August, 1980. The respondents applied for leave and by an order dated 13th September, 1979 were granted leave to contest, on all grounds except those set out in paras 5 and 13 of the application for leave to contest.2. One of the grounds on which the leave to contest was granted was the plea that the eviction petition was premature having been filed without a present cause of action as the date of retirement giving rise to the need of the premises was 31st August, 1980, more than one year after the filing of the petition.3. After the grant of leave to contest, on this among grounds, the learned Rent Controller proceeded to consider the ground of prematurely of the eviction application, there and then and by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 37(1989)DLT278
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The appellant herein was defendant in the suit, (S N. 108/80), instituted by the respondent in respect to a plot of land bearing No. E-2, Bali Nagar, New Delhi, which was alleged to have been let out to him under an agreement dated 22nd May, 1971 initially for a period of 11 months and extended from time to lime up to 22nd February, 1976. The suit was for recovery of possession on the plea that the tenancy of the defendant (appellant herein), had come to an end by efflux of time, having not been renewed after 22nd of February, 1976 but nevertheless as a measure of abundant caution, the plaintiff also served a notice of termination of tenancy on the defendant with effect from 22nd March, 1977, by means of notice dated 28th February, 1977. duly served upon him, and that since the defendant.had refused to surrender possession despite this notice, the suit was necessitated. (2) The suit was contested on a number of pleas, including denial of status of the plaintiff a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:04. 10.2018 Pronounced on:07. 01.2019 versus SHOBHA AGGARWAL & ORS. UOI & ANR. + W.P.(C) 516/2010 & CM APPL. 26668/2018 + W.P.(C) 7489/2012 + W.P.(C) 4951/2014 HARSH KUMAR AGARWAL UNION OF INDIA AND ORS MAHENDER YADAV UOI & ANR versus versus ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS + W.P.(C) 917/2018 CHAUDHARY KISHAN CHAND & SONS (HUF)........ Petitioner UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS versus + CS(OS) 3518/2012, I.A. 3927/2013 & 15957/2013 RAGHUBIR SARAN CHARITABLE TRUST RAYMOND LTD & ANR versus ..... Plaintiff ..... Defendants Through:... Petitioner No.1 in person in W.P.(C) 516/2010 with Sh. Pranav Jain, Advocate, for... Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) 516/2010. Ms. Shalini Kapoor, Ms. Rhea. G. Munjal, Ms. Bindita Chaturvedi and Sh. Dikshant Khanna, Advocates, for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4951/2014. Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj with Ms. Ananya Mukh...
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 : Delhi
Reported in : 2001VIAD(Delhi)525; 92(2001)DLT346
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. Arguments substantially similar to those raised in the present appeal by Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, were rejected by me in C.M. (M). 36/2001 on 19.2.2001. The tenant had tendered rent in excess of Rs. 3500/- per month but had tendered rent in excess of Rs. 3500/- per month but had contended that since the amendment introduced in 1988 to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was not retrospective, the tenant was still protected from eviction by the Delhi Rent Control Act. I had expressed the opinion that 'even if the question of the retrospectivity of the Repeal is to be considered on the basis of the decision of the Division Bench in Mrs. Nirmaljit Arora vs . Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. : 43(1991)DLT394 , this controversy would thereforee, not arise in the facts of the present case. Without any compulsion, the tenant has tendered rent in excess of Rs. 3500/-. This was not an involuntary act c...
Tag this Judgment!