Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi139; 1977RLR549
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This appeal has been placed before the Division Bench in view of order of reference to a larger bench dated 6th October, 1972, passed by T. P. S. Chawla, J., and raises a question as to the procedure the Controller ought to follow before passing order under section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) The respondent-landlord instituted proceedings for eviction under the Act against the appellant, the tenant. One of the grounds on which eviction was sought was that the tenant was in arrears in the payment of the rent. The case of the respondent-landlord in the eviction application was that the construction of the premises in question was completed on 13-3-1964 and the appellant is the first tenant in the said premises and that the premises were let out on 27-4-1964. It was further averred that the tenant was irregular in paying the rent and he has not paid the rent regularly since 26-11-1967. After 26-11-1967, the appellant,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2004IAD(Delhi)357; 107(2003)DLT58; 2003(71)DRJ81
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge dated 8.8.2002.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under.3. respondent Bani Jagtiani Trust is a public charitable trust. The property A-60, Kailash Colony, New Delhi is the property of the trust. First floor of the said property besides a garage and a servant quarter was let out to the appellant by the trust at a monthly rental of Rs. 3, 000/- in the year 1980. 4. By resorting to Section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the rent could be increased by 10%. Section 6A reads as under:'6A. Revision of Rent .-- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the standard rent, or where no standard rent is fixed under the provisions of this Act, in respect of any premises, the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, may be increased by ten per cent, every three yeaRs. '5. The respondent gave notice on 14.1.19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi210
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) Messrs Karan Chand Prem Chand Private Limited known as Sarabhai Chemicals are occupying as tenants a portion of the ground floor, including a loft. of building No. 12. Block No. 3. Asaf Ali Road. New Delhi. At first rent was being paid at the rate of Rs. 1,250.00 per month besides house-tax and actual charges for water and electricity. With effect from February 1. 1958, the rent was increased to Rs. 1,750.00 per month. House-tax and actual charges for water and electricity were in addition to that. (2) On January 4. 1961. Sarabhai Chemicals applied, under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for fixation of standard rent. At that time the premises belonged to Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh and his wife. Shrimati Lajwanti. and their son Gurbachan Singh. During the pendency of the proceedings the property was purchased by Messrs Urvinder Estates Private Limited. Afterwards Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh also died. (3) The new la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1990Delhi16; 1990RLR112
Bahri, J.(1) In this civil revision brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act challenging the eviction order dated December 17, 1986, made by an Additional Rent Controller, on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a learned Single Judge has made a reference on the question of law to be decided by this Bench. The relevant portion of the reference remembered order is reproduced as follows : 'The learned Additional Rent Controller has relied on a judgment of this Court in 'Food Corporation of India v. Smt. Usha Bhardwaj' 1986(2) Rcj 52(1), for the proposition that the Rent Controller has no power to extend the period of limitation for putting in appearance and filing an application for leave to defend. I have been referred to two contrary judgments of this Court. The first one is by M. L. Jam, J., in Surinder Kumar v. Prem Kumar. 1980 Rlr 621(2), and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON CIVIL APPEAL NO.20913 OF2017(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.17117 of 2016) ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.1. 2. Leave granted. This appeal involves an important question of law as to whether property tax recoverable from the tenant under Section 67(3) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (for short NDMC Act) as arrears of rent by the landlord/owner can be considered to be forming part of the rent for the purpose of seeking eviction or ejectment of such tenant who defaults in payment of such recoverable tax as rent and when the rent 2 including recoverable tax in respect of the tenanted premises exceeds Rs.3500/- per month, thereby losing protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short Rent Act).3. The appellant/plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the building known as Atma Ram Mansion (previously known as Scindi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(4)MPHT360; 2002(3)MPLJ504
S.S. Jha, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No. 10 of 1982 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 19-6-82 passed by Third Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior.2. Objection is raised by the respondents as to maintainability. The appeal was finally heard and decided on 4-9-96 [1997(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 255]. After its decision an application for restoration was filed as some of the respondents were not served and appeal came up for hearing. After restoration of appeal the case was listed again and objection is raised that in view of amendment in Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure this appeal is not maintainable. This appeal is filed against that order.3. It is to be examined whether the appeal is now maintainable in view of amended Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure came into force w.e.f. 1st July, 2002. Section 100A is reproduced below:--'100A. No further appeal in certain cases.-- Notwithstand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)576; AIR1996SC966; 1996(1)ALT33(SC); JT1996(1)SC234; 1996(4)KarLJ103; 1996(1)SCALE298; (1996)3SCC75; [1996]1SCR439
ORDER1. The petitioners are challenging the constitutionality of Explanation II to Section 2(22) and Section 76 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 (30 of 1987) (for short, 'the Act') in this writ petition, apart from other provisions of the Act challenge to which is decided in other connected matters. In this case we confine our consideration to the validity of the above provisions. It is contended in the writ petition and argued by Shri R. Venugopal Reddy, their learned senior counsel, that ryotwari pattas having been granted under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion in Ryotwari) Act (37 of 1956) (for short, 'the Inams Abolition Act') and the same having attained finality, the legislature is devoid of power under the Act to set at naught the effect of the grant of ryotwari patta to the archakas, service holders or employees covered under the Act by a legislative side-wind. It is their case that by gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1978RLR88
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This is an appeal instituted by the landlord U/S 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against an order whereby his petition for eviction U/S 14(1)(e) has been dismissed solely on the ground that the petition cannot be instituted because Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 states that no suit for eviction can be filed without obtaining permission from the Competent Authority if the premises are situated in a slum area. The landlord did not dispute the fact that the premises are situated in the slum area and are covered by the Act, but the contention was that on account of the amendment made by the Amendment Act of 1976, it was no longer necessary to get permission from the Competent Authority as the new Chapter Iiia had introduced a new procedure for the trial of applications U/S 14(1)(e) and the newly introduced Section 14A. The Rent Controller found that as far as Section 14A was concerned, it had an over-riding effect over all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 49(1993)DLT724; 1993(26)DRJ23; 1993RLR258
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, after the courts of the Addl. Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal have held by concurrent judgments that the petitioner, on the facts of the case, was not entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1957, (for short 'the Act') and was hit by terms of the proviso thereto.(2) It is an admitted fact that the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, had availed of benefit of section 14 (2) of the Act, and it was admittedly a case of second default. There is no denial of the fact that notice of demand had been served by the landlords/respondents, and received by the petitioner/tenant. There is also no denial of the fact that at the time the notice was received, there had been a default in the payment of rent for preceding three consecutive months. It is also admitted that rent only of one month was sent by money order, after receipt of the notice and during ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.2428/2015 & CM APPLs. 4371/2015 & 12669/2016 Judgment reserved on 30 November, 2018 Judgment pronounced on 27 August, 2019 ........ Petitioners Through : Mr. S.N. Chaudhri and Ms. Shruti Chaudhri, TEK CHAND NARULA AND OTHERS versus Advocates. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, Mr. Krishna Kumar, and Mr. Siddharth Jha, Advs. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. R.N. Vats, Standing Counsel & Mr.Akshat Gupta, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.:1. The petitioners, who are the progeny of one Daulat Ram Narula, have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail, essentially, the misuse charges and damages for unauthorized construction sought to be levied by the respondents qua property described as 1/90, P Block, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as property). 1.1 Portions of the property were...
Tag this Judgment!