Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1980Delhi142; 17(1980)DLT234; 1980(1)DRJ11
H.L. Anand, J.1. This is a tenant's petition under proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 assailing the order of eviction. The principal question that it raised was as to the liability of the tenant to eviction merely on the ground that the premises at present available to owners, though otherwise sufficient for their requirements having regard to the extent of the accommodation and of the family, was nevertheless insufficient, because on account of strained relations between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, a separate unit in the premises could not be provided for a branch of the family. Certain subsequent event have to an extent changed the context in which the order was made and have thrown up an additional problem as to their effect and the course to be followed in the changed circumstances.2. The property, in which the premises in dispute is situated is jointly owned by the mother, principal of a government school and her two sons ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(6)BomCR29; (2002)4BOMLR41; 2002(4)MhLj568
V.C. Daga, J. 1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Decreeof the Addl. District Judge, Mapusa in Regular CivilAppeal No.64/1990 dated 31.1.1996, reversing the Judgmentand Decree passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, atPanaji in Civil Suit No.35/80/C dated 28.9.1990, whereinthe suit for eviction has been found to be notmaintainable, in view of the extension of Rent ControlLegislation to the area in which the suit building issituated.FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. The factual background of the case can bestated quite shortly.3. The original plaintiff, late Shri DattatrayaWalaulikar vide Agreement dated 2.8.1971 had allowed oneVasudeo Dhempe to use western half portion of the housesituated in Village of Nerul, Bardez, Goa on monthlypayment of Rs.25/- for a period of 36 months on the leaveand licence basis.4. The original licensee, said Shri VasudeoDhempe left for heavenly abode on 2.7.1972. The presentdefendants continued to use and occupy the said house ashis heirs and successors. The de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2304; 2003(3)KarLJ505
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Respondents 1 to 6 were the petitioners and petitioners 1 and 2 were respondents 1(1) and 1(5) in HRC No. 10568 of 1994, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Respondents 7 to 13 herein were the respondents 1(2), 1(3), 1(4), 1(7), 1(8), 1(9) and 1(10) respectively in the said eviction petition. For convenience, respondents 1 to 6 will be referred to as 'landlords' and the petitioners 1 and 2 and respondents 7 to 13 will together be referred as 'tenants'.2. The said eviction petition was filed by the landlords against the tenants (the L.Rs of A. Rajagopal who was running Mercury Press in the petition schedule premises) under Section 21(1) proviso (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 'old HRC Act' or 'old Act'). The petition schedule premises is a non-residential premises, measuring more than 14 sq. nits. The said petition was allowed by order dated 17-11-2001 under proviso (h) to Section 21(1) of the said Act. Feeling aggr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD137; 2007(4)ALT348; AIR2007NOC2064(FB)(AP)
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. On behalf of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Dr. Justice G. Yethirajulu, the Hon'ble Justice G. Bhavani Prasad and himself).Issue under reference:Whether Section 32(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act') as brought into force by Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') has effect on the cases pending on the date of its coming into force is the question referred for the consideration of the Larger Bench. The Background Facts:2. Section 32(b) of the Act, which exempted buildings constructed on or after 26-8-1957, was held unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court in Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1984 SC 121. In order to fill up the void created by the said judgment with regard to provision for exemption of...
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!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION(C) NO.26 OF2020MANISH KUMAR PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER RESPONDENT(S) WITH WRIT PETITION (C) No.53/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.28/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.47/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.27/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.73/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.328/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.210/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.191/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.164/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.163/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.166/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.173/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.182/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.176/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.177/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.257/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.341/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.267/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.333/2020 1 WRIT PETITION (C) No.337/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.388/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.402/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.390/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.393/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.783/2020 TRANSFERRED CASE(C) No.228/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.579/2020 WRIT PETITI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(4)KarLJ105; 2009(2)KCCR991; 2009(2)AIRKarR76; AIR2009NOC1284(D.B)
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Appellant was the defendant and Respondent was the plaintiff In O.S. No. 4747/2000 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore City. Suit filed by the respondent for decree of ejectment and for damage manse profits against the appellant having been decreed by Trial Court on 04.04.2007, this appeal is filed questioning the same. For convenience, parties will be referred to hereinafter with reference to their rank in the suit.2. The preface of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paras 2 and 3 in the decision of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amritlal and Co., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 397, is apt to be noticed in this appeal by a Public Sector Bank - appellant, to consider the point raised by it for our decision. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:2. It is unfortunate, an eviction petition which was filed on 13.9.1985 still the parties are battling to find which court would have the jurisdiction. Whether the Court of Rent Controller under the Delhi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC572; JT1988(4)SC529; 1988(2)SCALE1418; (1989)1SCC561; [1988]Supp3SCR558
S. Ranganathan, J.1. The Civil appeals as well as the special leave petitions raise a common question as to whether the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, Act No. 13 of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are applicable to cantonments situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Since the two civil appeals are already pending on the issue, we grant special leave in the special leave petitions as well and proceed to dispose of all the four matters by this common judgment. The main judgment of the High Court under consideration is that in the case of Brij S under Kapoor v. Addl. District Judge reported in 1980. All R C 319. which answered the question in the affirmative. The Allahabad High Court has reiterated the same view in its later decision in Lekh Raj v. 4th Addl. Dt. Tudge, Meerut : AIR1982All265 , which we are told, is also under appeal to This court.2. It is sufficient to set out certain brief facts in the matter o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj819; 2003(4)WLC790
Goyal, J.1. Following common question of law arises in these four appeals:-'Whether the proceedings for fixation of standard rent under the repealed Act pending on the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Rent control Act, 2001, would be governed by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950 (for short the old Act) or by the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 (New Act) which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.03.?'2. Civil First Appeal Nos. 294/03, and 373/2003, respectively filed by tenants and landlord are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2003, passed in Civil Suit No. 28/2000, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, while dismissing the suit for eviction fixed Rs. 2500/- per month as standard rent under Section 6 of the Old Act. The tenants have come against the order of fixation of standard rent while the landlord has filed the appeal challenging the judgment and decree dismissing the suit for eviction as well ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(2)CTC129; (2003)2MLJ164
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. 1. In all these writ petitions the validity of the Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2 of 1996) whereunder Clause (f) was added to the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as Act 3 of 1922) is being challenged. Under the said Amendment Act 2 of 1996 the properties owned by the religious institutions are exempted from the purview of the Act 3 of 1922.2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the property belonging to various religious institutions. The Division Bench referred these cases by their order dated 15.10.1996 to a larger Bench, as a doubt is raised as to whether the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council, 1972 (85) L.W 760 dealt with the right of the tenants under Section 9 of the main Act 3 of 1922 alone or also dealt with t...
Tag this Judgment!