Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC648; 2005(80)DRJ(Suppl)518; [2005(2)JCR71(SC)]; JT2005(1)SC1; 2005(1)KLT443(SC); (2005)2SCC271
B.P. Singh, J.1. In this appeal by special leave appellant Nathi Devi is the tenant while respondent Radha Devi Gupta is the landlord who filed an application for the eviction of the appellant on the ground that she required the premises for her bona fide personal need invoking the provisions of Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which, according to her, entitled her to immediate possession of the premises in question being a widow landlady. The appellant filed an affidavit and prayed for leave to defend on the ground that the petition raised many triable issues. The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by his judgment and order dated 12th November, 1997 after considering the submissions urged before him came to the conclusion that the tenant had failed to make out a case for grant of leave to defend as she had failed to raise any triable issue. He, therefore, allowed the petition under Section 14D of the Act and passed an order of evict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 13(1977)DLT22
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This is a revision petition on behalf of the tenant under provisio to sub-section (8) of section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 against the order dated June 4, 1976 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi rejecting her application seeking permission to contest the petition for eviction filed by the respondent against the petitioner under section 14-A read with section 14(1)(e) of the aforesaid Act. (2) The respondent Mr. P.N. Chopra, son of Mr. A.N. Chopra, filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner, Mrs. P.N. Karkhanis on the ground that the premises in suit were let out to the tenant-respondent for residential purposes are required bonafide by the respondent landlord who is the owner thereof for occupation as residence for himself and for members of his family, dependent upon him. It was further alleged that the respondent-landlord is a Chief Engineer, Metropolitan Transport Project Ministr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA (OS) NO. 118/2011 & CM No. 6572/2012 Reserved on:18. h December, 2012 Date of Decision:31. t January, 2013 % FAB INDIA OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Ajay Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.K. Mehta, Mr. Virender Mehta, Mr. Kunal Mehta and Mr. Gautam Mehta, Advocates. Versus S.N. SHEOPORI ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr. Sanjiv Sindhwani, Mr. Sahil Bhalaik and Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG SANJIV KHANNA, J: This judgment disposes of the first appeal filed by Fab India Overseas Private Limited and the cross-objections filed by Janak Mushran against the judgment and decree dated 4th July, 2011 passed by the single Judge in CS(OS) No. 246/2009 titled S.N. Sheopori and Janak Mushran v. Fab India Overseas Private Limited.2. Before dwelling into the disputed questions, we deem it appropriate to state the undis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1986)(8)LC207Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Madras has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order in appeal No. 136/82 (M) dated 12-4-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. In column No. 3 of the memorandum of appeal the date of service has been mentioned as 12;4-1982. The appellant had moved an application for amendment of the appeal and has requested for making the amendment to the effect that the date had been wrongly written as 12-4-1982 against the correct date of 27-4-1982. By a separate order dated 20-2-1986, the amendment of the appeal was allowed to the effect that para No. 3 of form E. A.3 should be read as 27-4-1982. In terms of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the appeal was to be filed within three months. By virtue of the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order No. GSR 597(E), dated 11-10-1982 the appeal could have been filed within six months. The appellant has filed an application for condonat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1981RLR164
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The appellants were the tenant of the respondent in the disputed premises situated at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. One of the terms of the lease dt. 17.9.53, was as follows : 'THATthe lessee shall not be entitled to sublet or part with possession of the premises without the written permission of the landlady provided that the lessee shall have the right to allow the use of the premises to their sister or associate concern, the liability of the lessee to pay to the landlady covenated rent thereforee remaining absolute.' (2) The respondent landlady on 9.3 1972, filed an eviction petition on the ground that the tenant had sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the tenanted premises to M/s Associated Traders and Engineers(P) Ltd., without her written consent. The case of the tenant was that M/s. Associated Traders and Engineers(P) Ltd., were their associate or a sister concern and they were using the premises with express written permission of the landlady ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(105)DRJ358
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The appellant, which is a private limited company, is the owner and landlord of property bearing No. 54, Janpath, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The respondent herein, namely, Bank of India, was inducted as a tenant initially on 21.4.1962 in respect of the basement and ground floor of the suit property. Further portions of the property were also let out to the respondent in stages. Particulars of all the leases and the portions let out thereby are as under:S. No. Particulars Terms of Lease Portions let outof Lease1. Lease deed 25 years with effect 3100 sq.ft on the ground dated 21.4.62 from 12.5.1961 with a floor and 3100 sq.ft inclause for renewal the basement @ Rs.3,833/- p.m.2. Lease deed 10 years with effect 1200 sq.ft. on the back portiondated 9.5.68 from 18.4.1966 of the first floor @ Rs.2,700/- p.m.3. Oral Lease W.e.f. 20.2.1970 Front portion of the first floor@ Rs.2,700/- p.m.4. Oral Lease - 500 sq.ft. on the first floor@ Rs.1,125/-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :9. h February, 2015 Judgment delivered on :13th February,2015 % CS(OS) 623/2010 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Plaintiff Through: Mr. Suryakant Singla with Mr. Shanto Mukerjee, Advocates Versus MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Through: .Defendant Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff Surendra Kumar Gupta against his brother Mukesh Kumar Gupta. It is a suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits/damages and for injunction.2. The plaintiff had purchased half undivided share in House No.E-262, Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi from Smt. Kamla Kundra vide sale deed dated 18th December, 1974. This is a registered document. It is stated to be the self acquired property of the plaintiff. It is on a plot of land admeasuring 250 square yards upon which initially there was one and a half storeyed building built upon it.3. Devinder Nath Gupta, half broth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2000)125PLR388
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed by Nanak Chand and two others (hereinafter described as 'the petitioners') directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Karnal, dated 7.6.1990. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and instead passed an order of eviction against the petitioners with respect to the shop in dispute. The petitioners were granted a month's time to vacate the premises.2. The relevant facts are that respondent Bal Kishan had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioners with respect to the shop in dispute. It was asserted that Nanak Chand, petitioner No. 1, is a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. He was running the business of tyre and tube repairs. Respondent Bal Kishan had purchased the shop from Smt. Notani Bal on 27.12.1978. The grounds of eviction pressed were that petitioner No. 1 had not p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT590
Hardyal Hardy, J. (1) This second appeal has been filed by a tenant whose eviction has been ordered from a small loom described as a servant quarter and an open court-yard in a (2) The respondents had purchased bungalow No. 49 on Hanuman Road, New Delhi in 1958. At the time of purchase ey gto vacant possession of the entire bungalow except a small room described as a servant quarter and an open Court-yard which was in occupation of the appellant who claimed to have been in possession of the said portion of the property for the last 30 to 35 years, as according to him his father was an employee of the previous owner. The respondents who were Joint owners of the said bungalow with their father (since deceased) started living in the bungalow immediately after it was purchased by them. On the evidence that has been accepted by buth the Courts below, the respondents' family consisted of 18 or 19 members. Although the bungalow appears to be a fairly commodious one, the respondents sought evi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1969Delhi127
Inder Dev Dua, J.(1) This appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is directed against an order of remand made by the learned Rent Control Tribunal on 12-3-1968 after allowing the appeal of Shri Hans Raj Taneja and Smt. Raj Dulari from the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 14/9/1967 dismissing their application for eviction of the tenant who is the appellant in this Court. The learned Rent Controller disallowed the plea of a bona fide requirement on the ground that the application for eviction did nto contain an averment or allegation that the landlords seeking ejectment for their bona fide requirements, were the owners of the premises in question. I need nto go into the toher ground on which also the eviction order was claimed and which was repelled. (2) On appeal, the learned Rent Control Tribunal, following a decision of this Court, in which it was observed that the statutory requirement of the petitioner being the owner of the premises from which evicti...
Tag this Judgment!