Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ109; AIR2007NOC1100(SB)
ORDERV.K. Bali, C.J. and K.P. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. I have gone through the illuminative concurring judgments of Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. as also the concurring judgments of Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. expressing however, a different view than the one expressed by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. The present may be one of the rarest of rare cases where every Honourable Member of the Bench has chosen to write, even though concurring with the other, his own judgment. May be that the Honourable Member of the Bench concurring with the other wished to express the same view point in his own way.2. I have given deep and anxious the (sic) to both the views and after considering and reconsidering the whole issue, I have come to the conclusion that the view expressed by Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. appears to be correct. With respect, thus, I would differ with the view taken by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. Tenant means any person by whom o...
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 : 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 : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(1)BomCR189; 2009(6)MhLj906
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner tenant before this Court is challenging the judgment dated 18/2/2005, delivered by the learned 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2003 and prays for dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 589 of 2001 filed by respondent landlord before the Civil Judge, Senior Judge, Akola. In that suit, eviction of the petitioner and possession was sought under Section 15 & 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola on 02/5/2003 decreed the suit partly and directed the petitioner tenant to handover the possession within two months. It decreed the suit only on the ground that his bona fide need was proved by the respondent landlord.2. In Regular Civil Appeal No. 190/2003, filed by the present petitioner, a cross objection or Counter appeal was filed by the landlord seeking entire relief as per plaint prayers. The learned 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Akola, found that the...
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 : Delhi
$~1 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: December 02, 2016 RSA3462016 GYAN CHAND ..... Appellant Through: Mr.N.K.Aggarwal & Ms.Nupur Sachdeva, Advocates with appellant in person versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate with Mr.Ankush Sharma & Mr.Gaurav Dhakar, Advocates KAMLESH CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT (Oral) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the concurrent judgment of the Courts below i.e. of the First Appellate Court dated 16th September, 2016 and of the trial Court dated 11th December, 2014 whereby the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the possession has been decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.2. After the notice of the appeal was sent to the Respondent, LCR was also requisitioned.3. At the stage of hearing, the thrust of argument on behalf of the appellant was that instead of passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of admission ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1990MPLJ412
T.N. Singh, J.1. On admitted facts, defendant/appellant has raised a short, but important question of law in this second appeal. Decrees passed by two Courts below, it is contended, suffer jurisdictional incompetence and must be set aside on that account.2. In the opening paragraph of its judgment, the lower appellate Court has focussed on the crux of the controversy. The four-fold entitlement of the plaintiffs accepted by the trial Court in passing decree in that regard is set out. In title suit No. 78/81 which plaintiffs had instituted for defendant's eviction from the suit-house, a preliminary decree was passed on 9-4-1965 directing, inter alia, that defendant should hand over vacant possession of the suit house to the plaintiffs latest by 8-7-1965 and that on possession being so delivered to the plaintiffs, they would be entitled to pray for mesne profits on paying court-fees in that regard and obtain decree for that on enquiry into their claim in that regard being completed.2-A. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi801
Tatachari, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of the six Second Appeals, S.A.O. Nos. 315 to 320 of 1969. These Second Appeals have arisen out of six petitions filed by different tenants, for fixation of standard rent in respect of their respective premises which are all in building No. 112-A, Krishan Nagar, New Delhi, in the Court of Shri D. C. Aggarwal, Rent Controller, Delhi. The said petitions were numbered as suits Nos. 26 and 27 of 1968, and Iii, 112, 113 and 114 of 1967. The premises are used as shops, and each petitioner (hereinafter called the tenant) has one shop in his possession. The rent was originally Rs. 105.00 per month, but was subsequently increased to Rs. 125.00 per month. The tenants contended that the rent was excessive, and that the standard rent for each shop would not exceed Rs. 10.00 per month. The landlord, Chander Bhan, who was the respondent in all the petitions and who is the appellant in all the Second Appeals, contended, inter alia, that the Rent Controller ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT412
(1) This second appeal from order under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 8-5-1968 allowing Smt. Gulab Devi's appeal from the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 13-12-1966 dismissing her ejectment applications.(2) Two ejectment applications had been filed by Smt. Gulab Devi against Smt. D. P. Sinha and her children as legal representatives of the deceased tenant Shri D. P. Sinha and against Shri Ram Lal. The plea in ejectment application No. 1018 of 1964 was based on the averments that the premises had been sublet, assigned or that the premises were otherwise parted with to another person without obtaining the consent of the owner in writing. The premises were alleged to have been let out for residential purposes and required bonafide by the petitioner-landlady who was the owner and also as residence for herself and for other members of her family upon whom she depended. Her son Arjan Saxena, acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi792
Tatachari, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of the six Second Appeals, S.A.O. Nos. 315 to 320 of 1969. These Second Appeals have arisen out of six petitions filed by different tenants, for fixation of standard rent in respect of their respective premises which are all in building No. 112-A, Krishan Nagar, New Delhi, in the Court of Shri D. C. Aggarwal, Rent Controller, Delhi. The said petitions were numbered as suits Nos. 26 and 27 of 1968, and Iii, 112, 113 and 114 of 1967. The premises are used as shops, and each petitioner (hereinafter called the tenant) has one shop in his possession. The rent was originally Rs. 105.00 per month, but was subsequently increased to Rs. 125.00 per month. The tenants contended that the rent was excessive, and that the standard rent for each shop would not exceed Rs. 10.00 per month. The landlord, Chander Bhan, who was the respondent in all the petitions and who is the appellant in all the Second Appeals, contended, inter alia, that the Rent Controller...
Tag this Judgment!