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 : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(1)BomCR189; 2009(6)MhLj906
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner tenant before this Court is challenging the judgment dated 18/2/2005, delivered by the learned 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2003 and prays for dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 589 of 2001 filed by respondent landlord before the Civil Judge, Senior Judge, Akola. In that suit, eviction of the petitioner and possession was sought under Section 15 & 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola on 02/5/2003 decreed the suit partly and directed the petitioner tenant to handover the possession within two months. It decreed the suit only on the ground that his bona fide need was proved by the respondent landlord.2. In Regular Civil Appeal No. 190/2003, filed by the present petitioner, a cross objection or Counter appeal was filed by the landlord seeking entire relief as per plaint prayers. The learned 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Akola, found that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1986P& H119
D.S. Tewatia, J.1. Doubt as to the correctness of law laid down by the Division Bench in M.P. Bansal v. District Employment Officer (Civil Revision No. 2262 of 1981) decided on Mar. 16. 1985, reported in AIR 1985 Punj & Har 251, entertained by a Division Bench, led to the reference to Full Bench of three Civil Revision Petitioners, namely, No. 1108 of 1983 at the instance of the Division Bench itself and Nos. 2202 of 1982 and 3063 of 1984 by J. V. Gupta, J. in the wake of the said earlier reference order by the Division Bench.2. Before the examination of the relevant legal queries that arise in regard to the law laid down in Bansal's case (AIR 1985 Punj & Har 251) a brief resume of the facts of the three revision petitioners would help in viewing the said legal queries in proper perspective.3. In Civil Revision No. 1108 of 1983, Shri Hari Mittal, Advocate, tenant-pet, had taken on rent House NO. 1278, sector 18-C, Chandigarh, on 21-11-1969, at a time when he was employed as a District ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~1 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: December 02, 2016 RSA3462016 GYAN CHAND ..... Appellant Through: Mr.N.K.Aggarwal & Ms.Nupur Sachdeva, Advocates with appellant in person versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate with Mr.Ankush Sharma & Mr.Gaurav Dhakar, Advocates KAMLESH CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT (Oral) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the concurrent judgment of the Courts below i.e. of the First Appellate Court dated 16th September, 2016 and of the trial Court dated 11th December, 2014 whereby the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the possession has been decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.2. After the notice of the appeal was sent to the Respondent, LCR was also requisitioned.3. At the stage of hearing, the thrust of argument on behalf of the appellant was that instead of passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of admission ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1990MPLJ412
T.N. Singh, J.1. On admitted facts, defendant/appellant has raised a short, but important question of law in this second appeal. Decrees passed by two Courts below, it is contended, suffer jurisdictional incompetence and must be set aside on that account.2. In the opening paragraph of its judgment, the lower appellate Court has focussed on the crux of the controversy. The four-fold entitlement of the plaintiffs accepted by the trial Court in passing decree in that regard is set out. In title suit No. 78/81 which plaintiffs had instituted for defendant's eviction from the suit-house, a preliminary decree was passed on 9-4-1965 directing, inter alia, that defendant should hand over vacant possession of the suit house to the plaintiffs latest by 8-7-1965 and that on possession being so delivered to the plaintiffs, they would be entitled to pray for mesne profits on paying court-fees in that regard and obtain decree for that on enquiry into their claim in that regard being completed.2-A. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT412
(1) This second appeal from order under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 8-5-1968 allowing Smt. Gulab Devi's appeal from the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 13-12-1966 dismissing her ejectment applications.(2) Two ejectment applications had been filed by Smt. Gulab Devi against Smt. D. P. Sinha and her children as legal representatives of the deceased tenant Shri D. P. Sinha and against Shri Ram Lal. The plea in ejectment application No. 1018 of 1964 was based on the averments that the premises had been sublet, assigned or that the premises were otherwise parted with to another person without obtaining the consent of the owner in writing. The premises were alleged to have been let out for residential purposes and required bonafide by the petitioner-landlady who was the owner and also as residence for herself and for other members of her family upon whom she depended. Her son Arjan Saxena, acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1972RLR66
M.R.A. Ansari (1) Petitioner owns certain property in Daryagani, Delhi which is let out to tenants. For 1959-60, its rateable value was Rs. 14,500.00. For 1960-61, value was assessed at Rs. 26,061.00. Petitioner appealed against it U/S 169 but the same as dismissed. He moved High Court where it was held that although the standard rent of the property had been fixed under the Rent Control Act of 1947, it was the standard rent fixed under the Act of 1952 or of 1958 which would govern the proviso to S. 116(1) about the rateable valuation. After discussing Supreme Court decisions in Corp. of Calcutta Vs . Padma Debi : [1962]3SCR49 ; Corp. of Calcutta Vs . L.I.C. of India : [1971]1SCR249 .(2) Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Tax Payers Association 1970 Rcj 989 it was observed in para 5 of the judgment on wards, thus :- The principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above three cases were applied by a Single Bench of this Court in Mrs. Sham Kapoor v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996RLR189
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) [ED. facts : Appellants had leased out suit premises to respondents 1 to 4 by means of lease deed dt. 30.5.57. who had sub-let portions of premises per consent in deed. Alleging that some portions have been unlawfully sub-let in 1965 & 1969 to respdt, 5, they obtained permission u/S 19 of Slum Areas Act on 4.6.70 and sued respdt. for eviction u/S. 14(i) (b), (c) & (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Respdts. 1 to 4 alone contested and filed separate w/Ss contending that they had not sub-let any portion to respdt 5 and they had sub-let same to one MK. Bhatia who had done unlawful sub-letting to respdt. 5 and that they have applied for permission to sue respdt. 5. They also alleged that one Manak Chand was co-owner and co-landlord. Respdt. no. 5 also took the same position contending that Manak Chand was necessary party and in his absence it was a case of partial eviction. Reply of three appellants was that partition had taken place between them and Manak Chand and respdts. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1305; [1964]4SCR647
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 392 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 13, 1962, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench at Delhi) in Civil Revision No. 427-D of 1957. Bishan Narain, O. C. Mathur, Ravinder Narain and J.B.Dadachanji for the appellants. A.V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. K. Jain, for respondent 1. S. N. Andley, for respondent No. 2. August 29, 1963. The judgment of S. K. Das, Acting C.J. and M. Hidayatullah, J. was delivered by S.K. Das Acting C.J. Sarkar J. delivered a dessenting opinion. S. K. DAS, Acting Chief Justice.--With much regret, we have come to a conclusion different from that of our learned brother Sarkar, J. as respects the true scope and effect of S. 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Control Act of 1958. The Control Act of 1958 repeals the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, hereinafter called the Control Act of 1952, in so far as that Act was applicable to the Uni...
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!