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 : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(1)Raj192
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. Two ancient maxims viz; (1) Judicis est jus dicere non dare: The judge's duty is to declare law and not to make it and (2) Talis interpretation semper fienda est, ut euitetur absurdum el inconveniens, et ne judicium sit illusorium: That interpretation must be chosen which avoids an absurdity or inconvenience and which does not make a decision of court illusory, are coupled with the controversy involved in the present seventeen writ petitions, whereby the Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, hereinafter referred-to as 'the New Act' in toto and Section 32(3)(a) of this New Act and Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, later styled as 'the Old Act', have been challenged by declaring them as ultravires to the Constitution of India. Though different reliefs have been sought in these petitions but broadly, they are of three categories.The relief sought in the first set of petitions is to declare the Ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR3109
ORDERVenkataraman, J1. The petitioner has filed this Petition for quashing the order dated 18.4.95 in HRC/DC/A-152-1994-95 passed by the second respondent and for a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction declaring that order dated 14.3.95 passed by the third respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable and to consider the matter afresh by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence before it in HRC/ACC(E) 274/94 and proceed with the case thereafter.2. The facts giving rise to this Petition in brief are as hereunder: The Revenue Inspector attached to the office of third respondent, House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Bangalore, gave a report dated 23.8.94 to the effect that the premises bearing No. 544, Ground Floor, First Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore, had fallen vacant. The Controller issued a notice to the petitioner-landlord to show cause as to why the vacancy was not reported. The petitioner by his reply dated 30.8.94 while admitting that the premis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 8(1972)DLT123
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This second appeal from order has been filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act real with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the tenant against the appellate order of the Control Tribunal dated December 3, 1970bywhich he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Rent Controller dated June 10, 1970 dismissing the objections of the tenant against execution of the order for eviction which had been passed against him. (2) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant before me is the tenant while the respondent is the landlord and owner of the premises in dispute. On September 24, 1966 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (i) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). In paragraph 18 of the petition, the landlord had specified the ingredients of clause (e) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!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
* 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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC302; (1976)4SCC535; [1977]1SCR731
M.H. Beg, J.1.This appeal by special leave is directed against the unanimous decision of a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court. The case before us arose from a Writ Petition filed by the respondent, M.N. Soi, praying that certain assessment orders, together with the order under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act III of 1911, passed on 11th February, 1966, by an Additional District Magistrate of Delhi relating to the house of the petitioner at 15, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, modifying assessments on appeal, be quashed. The respondent landlord submitted that assessment for purposes of rating, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(1 )(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act III of 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and, in particular, the interpretation of the words 'may reasonably be expected to be let from year to year', impose upon the assessing authorities the obligation not to assess at a higher rental value than the 'standard rent'. It is not disputed that standard rent...
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 : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ109; AIR2007NOC1100(SB)
ORDERV.K. Bali, C.J. and K.P. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. I have gone through the illuminative concurring judgments of Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. as also the concurring judgments of Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. expressing however, a different view than the one expressed by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. The present may be one of the rarest of rare cases where every Honourable Member of the Bench has chosen to write, even though concurring with the other, his own judgment. May be that the Honourable Member of the Bench concurring with the other wished to express the same view point in his own way.2. I have given deep and anxious the (sic) to both the views and after considering and reconsidering the whole issue, I have come to the conclusion that the view expressed by Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. appears to be correct. With respect, thus, I would differ with the view taken by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. Tenant means any person by whom o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1960P& H11
G.L. Chopra, J.1. The only point of law involved and referred for decision of the Bench in these two petitions for revision (No. 392-D of 1954 and No. 537-D of 1958) is as follows:'Whether in a suit, otherwise within the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, the jurisdiction of such Court is ousted by the defendant raising the question of the fixation of standard rent according to the provisions of Act No. XXXVIII of 1952, because such a question cannot be decided and disposed of by a Court of Small Causes, and the course open to the Court of Small Causes is to return the plaint for presentation to a proper Court, which will of course be a Court under Act No. XXXVIII of 1952'?(2) In C. R. No. 392-D of 1954, a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, Rs. 683/3/-, was instituted by the landlord in the Small Causes Court, Delhi, on 23rd December, 1953. One of the defence taken by the tenant was that the rent claimed was more than the standard rent and a prayer for the standard rent being ...
Tag this Judgment!