Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001VAD(Delhi)43; 92(2001)DLT97
ORDERA. K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of possession in respect of Premises No. 9283 & 3089 (old) - N-1 And N-5/2 (New) in the property known a 'N' Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi (hereinafter to be called as 'suit property' for short).2. While the suit is pending adjudication, this is No.14256/92 has been filed by the plaintiff seeking direction to the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs for wrongful use and occupation of the premises in question with further direction to the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month as damages till the disposal of the suit. For determining the issue involved in this IA, it would be appropriate to have a glance at the pleadings.3. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property which was purchased by the plaintiff in an open auction dated 16th March, 1961 by the Ministry of Rehabilitation through Chief Settlement Commissioner, Department of Rehabilitation (Now Ministry of Home Affairs). T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 114(2004)DLT691
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 14th January, 2004 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal' ), whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the landlord to withdraw his suit for eviction under Section 14(i)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.2. The facts of the case are that two petitions were filed by Smt.Krishna Dwivedi under Section 14(i)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against Surinder Kumar and Pawan Kumar with respect to tenanted premises No. 248, Sant Nagar, New Delhi - 65. Both petitions were taken up together and disposed by a common order dated 28th September, 2002, of the Additional Rent Controller (for short 'the Controller'), wherein the Controller has passed an order of eviction directing the landlord to rebuild the premises within four months and in default thereof, to pay Rs.10,000/- per month by way of compensation. Being aggrieved of this order of the Controller, both the parties filed appeals before the Tribunal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997IIIAD(Delhi)872; 67(1997)DLT47
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) This appeal by Rajesh Gupta, appellant-plaintiff, is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge on August 9,1996 disposing of two applications, one under Order Xxxix Rules 1 & 2, Civil Procedure Code (I.A. 3013/96) and the other under Order Xxxix Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code (I.A. No. 3339/96). (2) Facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Appellant has filed a suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction against Ajit Prasad Jain and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondents-defendants, inter alia, on the allegations that he is a tenant in respect of shop Nos. 2 & 3 forming part of property No. F-14/17, Model Town-11, Delhi, under respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1, who started illegal construction on the rear portion of the said property, is now trying to raise construction on the roof of said shop Nos. 2 & 3 without getting building plan sanctioned from respondent No. 2 and obtaining consent from the appellant. B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 81(1999)DLT275; 1999(50)DRJ854
Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal allowing the appeal of the respondent under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. Originally, the petition was filed under Section14(1)(b), (c), (h) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. That petition was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller on 23rd April, 1994. The eviction petition was filed somewhere in 1983 by the respondent against the present appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal limiting their prayer only under Clause (h) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Mr. Warrier, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the premises were being used for commercial purposes right from the inception of the tenancy and, thereforee, no order could have been passed under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In support of his contention he has cited Dr. G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~15 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:18. h January, 2018 CM(M) 391/2016 NIRMAL DEVI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. J.C. Mahindro, Advocate versus POONAM & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Respondent no.1 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner admittedly is the landlady qua the respondents in respect of the demised premises described as property bearing no.L- 26/8, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110 092. It appears the premises were let out initially in the name of Mr. Kamal Kumar at the agreed monthly rent of Rs.400/-. Mr. Kamal Kumar having died on 15.02.2005, the respondents have stepped into his shoes and have become the tenants under the petitioner.2. The petitioner issued a legal notice on 07.08.2007, through counsel, demanding payment of arrears of rent, inter alia, stating that by virtue of the discretion vested in him under Section 6A of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, he was entitled to increase the rent. He also alleged that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : January 08, 2015 Judgment Delivered on : February 02, 2015 + RFA (OS) 55/2014 DELUXE DENTELLES PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Appellants Represented by: Mr.C.A.Sundram, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms.Divvya Kesaar and Mr.Mannmohit K.Puri, Advocates versus SMT. ISHPINDER KOCHHAR .....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Sumit Bansal, Advocate with Mr.Ateev Mathur and Ms.Jagriti Ahuja, Advocates FAO (OS) 117/2014 DELUXE DENTELLES PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Appellants Represented by: Mr.C.A.Sundram, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms.Divya Kesar and Mr.Manmohit K.Puri, Advocates versus SMT. ISHPINDER KOCHHAR .....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Sumit Bansal, Advocate with Mr.Ateev Mathur and Ms.Jagriti Ahuja, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff before the learned Single Judge. We shall be referring to the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6718 OF2004M.C.D. & ANR. APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S. MEHRASONS JEWELLERS (P) LTD. ...RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8341 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.8342 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.________ OF2015(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.32342 OF2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.632 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.8340 OF2011JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. Leave granted.2. In this batch of appeals there appear to be two distinct groups dealing with two separate questions that have been raised by counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Civil Appeal No.6718 of 2004 raises a question as to the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dhunishaw Framroz Daruwala, 100 DLT679(2002), decided on 23.7.2002, whereas the other appeals raise a question as to the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 21.4.2010 in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1972P& H317
1. On 9th November, 1956 vide rent note, Exhibit P-2, Banarsi Dass took a shop, situate in Faridabad, District Gurgaon, on rent from Jag Mohan son of Jai Narayan for a period of 11 months @ Rs.4/- per month. The tenancy was to commence from 1st November, 1956. Even after the expiry of the period of tenancy the tenant remained in possession of the property and continued paying rent to the landlord. On 5th January, 1959, another rent note, Exhibit P-1, was written by the tenant in favour of the landlord and this was also for 11 months and at the same rate of rent, namely, Rs.4/- per mensem. Banarsi Dass, subsequently, died on 14th December, 1965. On 11th April, 1966, a notice was issued by the landlord to his legal representatives asking them to vacate the premises, because the tenancy in favour of Banarsi Dass had come to an end and they were occupying the shop as mere trespassers, and in case, they did not do so, they would have to pay Rs.100/- per month as damages for use and occupati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)149PLR801
K.C. Puri, J.1. Vide this judgment, I intend to dispose of R.S.A. Nos. l876 of 1984, 3498 of 1985 and 18 of 1986, titled above. However, facts are being extracted from R.S.A. No. 3498 of 1985.2. The brief facts of the case are that one Dhanpat Singh, plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration for declaring sale deeds dated 13.3.1981 and 26.5.1981 as illegal, void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff and in the alternative he sought possession of the suit land. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of land measuring 3 kanals 6 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 717 situated in the area of village Premgarh and land measuring 6 Kanals 9 Marias bearing Khasra No. 5122/2138 situated in the area of Sutehri. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 17 were joint owners in possession of land measuring 24 Kanals 2 Marias situated in village Sutehri and land measuring 18 Kanals situated at village Premgarh as detailed fully in the plaint. They orally partitioned the j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2004Delhi248; 109(2004)DLT509; 2004(72)DRJ540
RFA No.833/2003 and CM 2088/2003. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 filed by the appellant. 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for possession with the prayer for a decree of possession in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants as well as a decree for recovery of arrears of rents and decree for recovery of damages/mesne profits. The appellant filed written statement. Thereafter in view of the written statement filed by the appellants, it seems that the respondent herein filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC praying for decree of recovery of possession on the basis of admissions made by defendants No.1 and 2. 3. Mr. Lonial, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the trial court erred in not appreciating that the rent of the premises was Rs. 3,217/- and was not more than Rs. 3,500/- and, thereforee, it was Rent Controller...
Tag this Judgment!