Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. This is plaintiff's appeal from Judgment, Order and Decree dated 28/11/2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panaji Goa (trial Court, for short) in Special Civil Suit No. 46/96/B. 2. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said suit. 3. The Plaintiff had filed the said suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises and for mesne profits calculated at the rate of Rs. 41,610.24/- per month w.e.f. 1/11/1995 until the defendant hands over effective possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and along with interest on the said amount calculated at the rate of 18% per annum. 4. Case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows: The plaintiff is owner of part of the second floor of the premises at Diamond Chambers, 18th June Road, Panaji-Goa admeasuring about 2600 square feet (suit premises). The construction of the suit premises was completed in the first week of November...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
H.R. Panwar, J.1. All these aforementioned civil second appeals and civil revisions involve identical question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties they are heard and decided together taking the facts of SBCSA No. 139/09 Ram Narayan v. Smt. Asha Devi as a leading case.2. Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these appeals and revisions are that the plaintiff respondent Smt. Asha Devi filed a civil suit against firm Ram Narayan Om Prakash for eviction of the disputed premises after serving notice under Section 106 r/w Section 114(h) of the Transfer of Property Act dated 6.10.2003. The suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.8.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 4, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), against which, one Ram Narayan the appellant herein filed an appeal before Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (for short 'the first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC265; (1977)1SCC750; [1977]2SCR421
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises a question of some interest and importance for decision. The question is whether the provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 96 of 1956, override those of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958. If they do, no person can institute any suit or proceeding for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area without the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. For the sake of brevity we will refer to these two enactments as the Slum Clearance Act' and the 'Delhi Rent Act respectively. 2. The respondent is a government servant employed in the Railway Ministry (Railway Board) and was in that capacity occupying quarters allotted to him by the Government at Nanakpura New Delhi. By a letter dated December 24, 1975 the Assistant Director of Estates called upon the respondent to vacate the quarters on or before December 31, 1975 on the ground that he owned a residential house and w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2003)135PLR250
Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner is a tenant on an industrial Plot in Chandigarh. Respondents have filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) in the year 1999. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, a Notification was issued by the Chandigarh Administration which reads as under:GOVERNMENT OF INDIAEXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITYCHANDIGARH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2002(KARTIKA 16, 1924 SAKA)FINANCE DEPARTMENTNOTIFICATION THE 7th NOVEMBER, 2002No. l985-UTFI(l)2002/9055 - in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 read with the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Extension to Chandigarh) Act,1974 (Act No. 54 of 74) and the Govt. of India's notification No.5.0.22(5) dated 8th January, 1950., the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is pleased to direct that the provisions of the aforesaid Act shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD145
C.V. Ramulu, J.1. The only substantial question of law that falls for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the appellate Court was justified in refusing to consider the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 636, General Administration (Accommodation-A) Department, dated 29-12-1983 on the premise that the said issue has already been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in M. Sreeramulu v. Tahera Yousuf Kadri : 2000(3)ALD173 (FB), and in not examining the validity of the said G.O. in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra : AIR1998SC602 .2. A few facts, which are relevant, may be noticed as under:3. The appellant is the defendant/ tenant. Respondent No. 1/landlord filed a suit in O.S. No. 3756 of 1997 on the file of the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property, for arrears of rent and for future mesne profits. It was the case respondent-plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002IIAD(Delhi)261; 95(2002)DLT508; 2002(61)DRJ457; 2002RLR149
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner primarilychallenges the provisions of Sections 4, 6, 9 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 beingviolative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioneralso seeks a direction to the first respondent to rationalise the provisions of DelhiRent Control Act so that the petitioner is assured of receiving reasonable rent for hisproperties let out to the tenants. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a building bearing No. 40-42, Janpath, New Delhi. It is claimed that the said building was completed in the year 1938 at a cost of Rs. 2,50,362.50 and the same was let out to various tenants about 40-50 year ack. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the rent is pegged at a very low level which is highly unjust, unfair and unreasonable. The petitioner claims that his rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21of the Constitution have been abridged by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4563 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P (C) No.26941 of 2011) Dina Nath (D) by Lrs. & Anr. Appellants Versus Subhash Chand Saini & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT T.S. Thakur, J.1. Leave granted.2. I have had the privilege of going through the elaborate Order proposed by my Esteemed Brother J.S. Khehar, J.While I entirely agree with the view that the power to strike out the defence vested in the Court under Section 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is discretionary and ought to be exercised only when the tenant deliberately, contumaciously or negligently fails to deposit the rent due from him, I have, however, not been able to persuade myself to hold that such deliberate, neglect or contumacious failure has been established against the petitioner-tenant in the instant case so as to justify the exceptional step of the Court striking out his defence at the threshold.3. The facts giving rise to the controv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1734
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this batch of petitions, since common questions of law have been raised, these petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 22740/96, 26483 to 26484/96, 27734 to 27741/96, 28843/96, 2960/97, 15299/97 and 16470/96 have called in question the Constitutional validity of Section 2(7)(bb)(iii) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22740/ 96 has called in question the Constitutional validity of Section 2(7) of the Act. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22740/96 at the hearing of these petitions, limited his argument only to the Constitutional validity of Section 2(7)(bb)(iii) and (iv) and the Explanation given to the said provision. 3. The petitioners, in these petitions, are the tenants in respect of either residential or non-residential premises taken on lease bythem from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1980Delhi329
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) The petitioner is a tenant of respondent No. 1. The jurisdiction of the Estate Officer acting under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants), Act, 1971, in issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner, dated 1st March, 1979, is challenged in this writ petition. For the purpose of determining the said jurisdiction a proper construction of the definition of 'Public premises' in section 2(e) 'of the said Act is necessary. Section 2(e) is as follows : '(E)'public premises' means and premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes ( I ) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by or on behalf of (i) any company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty-one per cent, of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government; and (ii) any Corporation (not being a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, or a local auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1999Delhi257; [1998(79)FLR954]
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. In this public interest writ petition the petitioner, Common Cause, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, seeks a direction to the first and the second respondents, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, and the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs respectively, to issue a notification in the official gazette notifying the date on which the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (Act No. 33 of 1995) (for short 'the new Rent Act') shall come into force. The facts lie in a narrow compass. 2. Home is an eternal quest of all mankind. Law which encourages construction of houses to meet one of the basic demands of habitat is the paramount requirement in this country. Realizing this need and voicing its concern regarding the acute shortage of housing, the Supreme Court in Prabhakaran Nair etc., v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , expressed the necessity for a national hou...
Tag this Judgment!