Court : Delhi
Reported in : 37(1989)DLT278
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The appellant herein was defendant in the suit, (S N. 108/80), instituted by the respondent in respect to a plot of land bearing No. E-2, Bali Nagar, New Delhi, which was alleged to have been let out to him under an agreement dated 22nd May, 1971 initially for a period of 11 months and extended from time to lime up to 22nd February, 1976. The suit was for recovery of possession on the plea that the tenancy of the defendant (appellant herein), had come to an end by efflux of time, having not been renewed after 22nd of February, 1976 but nevertheless as a measure of abundant caution, the plaintiff also served a notice of termination of tenancy on the defendant with effect from 22nd March, 1977, by means of notice dated 28th February, 1977. duly served upon him, and that since the defendant.had refused to surrender possession despite this notice, the suit was necessitated. (2) The suit was contested on a number of pleas, including denial of status of the plaintiff a...
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 : 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 : 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 : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)551; 62(1996)DLT451; 1996(37)DRJ548
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 15, 1993 passed by Shri K.S.Gupta, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which inter-alia upheld the order passed by Shri P.D.Gupta, Additional Rent Controller striking out the defense of the appellant under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for not making payment/deposit in compliance with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act.(2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Filed petition for eviction on the ground of non payment of rent which was being contested by the appellant. On April 1, 1991 respondent filed an application on the allegations that an order under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed against the appellant on 2nd November, 1989 for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.250.00 per month with effect from March 1, 1987. On the application filed for withdrawal of rent it was reported that the appellant deposited only a sum of Rs.8250.00 by way...
Tag this Judgment!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 : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:04. 10.2018 Pronounced on:07. 01.2019 versus SHOBHA AGGARWAL & ORS. UOI & ANR. + W.P.(C) 516/2010 & CM APPL. 26668/2018 + W.P.(C) 7489/2012 + W.P.(C) 4951/2014 HARSH KUMAR AGARWAL UNION OF INDIA AND ORS MAHENDER YADAV UOI & ANR versus versus ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS + W.P.(C) 917/2018 CHAUDHARY KISHAN CHAND & SONS (HUF)........ Petitioner UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS versus + CS(OS) 3518/2012, I.A. 3927/2013 & 15957/2013 RAGHUBIR SARAN CHARITABLE TRUST RAYMOND LTD & ANR versus ..... Plaintiff ..... Defendants Through:... Petitioner No.1 in person in W.P.(C) 516/2010 with Sh. Pranav Jain, Advocate, for... Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) 516/2010. Ms. Shalini Kapoor, Ms. Rhea. G. Munjal, Ms. Bindita Chaturvedi and Sh. Dikshant Khanna, Advocates, for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4951/2014. Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj with Ms. Ananya Mukh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1975Delhi236
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Civil Writ Petition came up initially for hearing before B. C. Misra J. who considered that it should be heard by a larger Bench. The Civil Writ Petition then came up before a Division Bench consisting of V. S. Deshpande and H B. C. Misra JJ. who referred it to a Full Bench. Although the Division Bench framed certain questions, which will be referred to later, for consideration by the Full Bench, the counsel arc agreed that the entire Writ Petition has been referred for being heard and decided by the Full Bench. (2) The Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner. M. v. Soi, praying that certain orders passed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee assessing the annual value of the petitioner's house for purposes of house-tax for the year 1963-64. 1964.65 ?'J 1965-66 be quashed. The respondents to the Writ Petition are (1) The New Delhi Municipal Committee, and (2) Shri S. C. Vaish, Additional District Magistrate, Delhi. (3) It is necessary at this st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001VIAD(Delhi)525; 92(2001)DLT346
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. Arguments substantially similar to those raised in the present appeal by Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, were rejected by me in C.M. (M). 36/2001 on 19.2.2001. The tenant had tendered rent in excess of Rs. 3500/- per month but had tendered rent in excess of Rs. 3500/- per month but had contended that since the amendment introduced in 1988 to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was not retrospective, the tenant was still protected from eviction by the Delhi Rent Control Act. I had expressed the opinion that 'even if the question of the retrospectivity of the Repeal is to be considered on the basis of the decision of the Division Bench in Mrs. Nirmaljit Arora vs . Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. : 43(1991)DLT394 , this controversy would thereforee, not arise in the facts of the present case. Without any compulsion, the tenant has tendered rent in excess of Rs. 3500/-. This was not an involuntary act c...
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!