Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1972RLR66
M.R.A. Ansari (1) Petitioner owns certain property in Daryagani, Delhi which is let out to tenants. For 1959-60, its rateable value was Rs. 14,500.00. For 1960-61, value was assessed at Rs. 26,061.00. Petitioner appealed against it U/S 169 but the same as dismissed. He moved High Court where it was held that although the standard rent of the property had been fixed under the Rent Control Act of 1947, it was the standard rent fixed under the Act of 1952 or of 1958 which would govern the proviso to S. 116(1) about the rateable valuation. After discussing Supreme Court decisions in Corp. of Calcutta Vs . Padma Debi : [1962]3SCR49 ; Corp. of Calcutta Vs . L.I.C. of India : [1971]1SCR249 .(2) Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Tax Payers Association 1970 Rcj 989 it was observed in para 5 of the judgment on wards, thus :- The principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above three cases were applied by a Single Bench of this Court in Mrs. Sham Kapoor v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001VAD(Delhi)286; 2002(61)DRJ10
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. Rule.With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and its functionaries i.e. respondent No.s 1 and 2, to carry out their statutory obligation of demolishing the remaining portion of the front part of the building bearing municipal No. 4217, Mohd. Ahiran, Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Respondent No. 3 is the tenant in the premises and carriers on his business there from.2. This case has a chequered history. It would be necessary to briefly recapitulate the same.3. The writ petition had come up before a learned Single Judge of this court on 27.9.1999. Learned Single Judge on the petitioner's submission that the property was more than 100 years old and that a substantial portion had collapsed, directed MCD to inspected the premises and if found to be in ruinous condition, it would take steps for demolition of the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1994Delhi112; 51(1993)DLT334; 1993(27)DRJ144
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners mainly seek the following reliefs:- 1.Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD' for short) under section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'DMC Act') and those issued by the New Delhi Municipal Committee ('NDMC' for short) under section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act ('PM Act' for short) as extended to Delhi, on the properties situated within their respective areas; 2.A writ in the nature of direction or order declaring that the words 'be precluded from objecting to any assessment made by the Commissioner in respect of such land or building of which he is the owner or occupier' appearinginsub-section(3)ofsection 131 of the Dmc Act are unconstitutional, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice; and 3.A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the municipal authorities (MCD and NDMC) to...
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 : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi156
1. A tenant is protected in varying degrees from eviction by three principal enactments, namely, (1) the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, (2) The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and (3) the Delhi rent Control Act, 1958 and similar legislation in other States. The question before us is whether these Acts can b construed harmoniously so that all of them can apply to a given situation or whether any of them is repugnant to the other and is repealed by implication to the extent of the repugnancy.2. The appellant is the purchaser of a house in Azadpur, Delhi, from the compensation pool under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. By virtue of the sale certificate he obtained title to the house with effect from 22-2-1964. The respondent was in occupation of the house from before the purchase and was thus entitled to the benefit of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 which absolu...
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 : Delhi
CM(M) 1394/2011 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the concurrent judgment of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 1st July, 2008 and Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 18th November, 2011 by which the eviction petition filed by the respondent on the ground of sub-letting has been allowed in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. Shop No.106, First Floor, Mansarovar Building, 90, Nehru Place, New Delhi. 2. The respondents filed an eviction petition against the petitioner seeking eviction on the grounds of sub-letting under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. The eviction petition after trial was decreed in terms of the judgment by the learned ARC. The appeal preferred against the said judgment before the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal also failed. 3. Challenge by the petitioner to the impugned orders are interalia on following grounds:- (i) The petitioner N.K.Jain had taken the suit premises on rent vide l...
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!