Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1781; JT1995(4)SC187; 1995(3)SCALE197; (1995)3SCC709; [1995]3SCR817
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. The short question which falls for consideration in the present appeal is whether on the coming into operation of the notification on 26th October, 1983 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the three applications made by the tenant for relief under the Act survive or not.The relevant facts are that the suit premises were governed by the Act till 29th December, 1983. On 4th February, 1983 and 13th February, 1983, the respondent-tenant filed variously three applications, viz., (i) R.C.15/83 for direction to permit him to deposit rent in the court (ii) R.C. 16/83 for fixation of fair rent and (iii) R.C. 17/83 to prevent inconvenience. The State Government issued notification dated 29th December, 1983 exempting w.e.f. 26th October, 1983 from all the provisions of the Act, among others, buildings wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC985; JT1995(1)SC142; 1994(5)SCALE295; (1995)1SCC356; [1994]Supp6SCR603; 1995(1)LC603(SC)
ORDERSuhas. C. Sen, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is against an order passed by the Delhi High Court on 5th September, 1989, declining to interfere with an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 30th May, 1989.3. The appellant, Smt. Kamla Devi, is the owner of Shop No. 408, Pandit Lila Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. The shop was let out to the respondent, the respondent defaulted in payment of rent. The appellant sent a demand notice on 18.5.1981 upon the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent. The respondent neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent within the period of two months after the service of the demand notice. On or about 2.8.1982, the appellant filed an edition petition under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It was admitted in the written statement that rent was due from 1st January, 1980. On 27th January, 1984 the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, passed an order to the following effect:I direct the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2006)144PLR802; 2006(11)SCALE108
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.Background facts:2. Appellants are tenants in the premises situated within the Union Territory of Chandigarh. They were protected in terms of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the 1949 Act'). The Administrator of Chandigarh in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 3 of the 1949 Act issued a notification dated 07.11.2002 whereby and whereunder it was directed that the provisions thereof would not apply to the buildings; monthly rent whereof exceeded Rs. 1,500/-. Aggrieved by issuance of the said notification, Appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, questioning the vires of Section 3 of the 1949 Act as also the validity of the said notification dated 07.11.2002 on diverse grounds. The said petitions have been dismissed. These appeals arise for the said judgments and orders. Before adverting to the questions involved in these appeals, we may notice the legislative...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIAD(SC)117; AIR1996SC2951; JT1996(4)SC479; 1996(4)KarLJ540; 1996(2)SCALE197; (1996)3SCC55; [1996]2SCR663; 1996(1)LC682(SC)
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. These are tenant's appeals.2. Prem Chand Jain, who is since dead and is now represented by respondent No. 1, had filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Delhi, for the eviction of the appellant from the premises No. XI/4239-A, Raj Kishan, Jain Street, Municipal Ward No. XI, Darya Ganj, Delhi, on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting. This petition came to be tried by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, who passed an order on 24th March, 1971 under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Act') requiring the appellant to deposit all the arrears of rent due for the period from 1.6.1970 within one month from the date of the order and to deposit the future rent also at the rate of Rs. 200 p.m. every month by the 15th of each succeeding month after adjusting an amount of Rs. 800 which, admittedly, was received by Prem Chand Jain as part of the arrears of rent.3. While the proceedings were pending/before the Addi...
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 : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(6)BomCR29; (2002)4BOMLR41; 2002(4)MhLj568
V.C. Daga, J. 1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Decreeof the Addl. District Judge, Mapusa in Regular CivilAppeal No.64/1990 dated 31.1.1996, reversing the Judgmentand Decree passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, atPanaji in Civil Suit No.35/80/C dated 28.9.1990, whereinthe suit for eviction has been found to be notmaintainable, in view of the extension of Rent ControlLegislation to the area in which the suit building issituated.FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. The factual background of the case can bestated quite shortly.3. The original plaintiff, late Shri DattatrayaWalaulikar vide Agreement dated 2.8.1971 had allowed oneVasudeo Dhempe to use western half portion of the housesituated in Village of Nerul, Bardez, Goa on monthlypayment of Rs.25/- for a period of 36 months on the leaveand licence basis.4. The original licensee, said Shri VasudeoDhempe left for heavenly abode on 2.7.1972. The presentdefendants continued to use and occupy the said house ashis heirs and successors. The de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2304; 2003(3)KarLJ505
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Respondents 1 to 6 were the petitioners and petitioners 1 and 2 were respondents 1(1) and 1(5) in HRC No. 10568 of 1994, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Respondents 7 to 13 herein were the respondents 1(2), 1(3), 1(4), 1(7), 1(8), 1(9) and 1(10) respectively in the said eviction petition. For convenience, respondents 1 to 6 will be referred to as 'landlords' and the petitioners 1 and 2 and respondents 7 to 13 will together be referred as 'tenants'.2. The said eviction petition was filed by the landlords against the tenants (the L.Rs of A. Rajagopal who was running Mercury Press in the petition schedule premises) under Section 21(1) proviso (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 'old HRC Act' or 'old Act'). The petition schedule premises is a non-residential premises, measuring more than 14 sq. nits. The said petition was allowed by order dated 17-11-2001 under proviso (h) to Section 21(1) of the said Act. Feeling aggr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD137; 2007(4)ALT348; AIR2007NOC2064(FB)(AP)
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. On behalf of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Dr. Justice G. Yethirajulu, the Hon'ble Justice G. Bhavani Prasad and himself).Issue under reference:Whether Section 32(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act') as brought into force by Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') has effect on the cases pending on the date of its coming into force is the question referred for the consideration of the Larger Bench. The Background Facts:2. Section 32(b) of the Act, which exempted buildings constructed on or after 26-8-1957, was held unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court in Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1984 SC 121. In order to fill up the void created by the said judgment with regard to provision for exemption of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(7)SC114; 1994(4)SCALE613; (1995)1SCC104; [1994]Supp4SCR539
Suhas C. Sen, J.1. This appeal has been heard along with a number of other appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions. Common questions of law have arisen in all these matters relating to interpretation and constitutional validity of Section 3(c) of the Rent Control Act, 1958.2. The Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended by Act No. 52 of 1988 came into effect from 1.12.88. Section 3(c) of the amended Act provided that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act will not apply to any premises whose monthly rent exceeded Rs. 3,500/-.3. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the validity of the newly inserted Section 3(c) of the Act. The appellant's writ petition was heard along with a batch of other writ petitions. By a judgment dated February 11, 1991, the Delhi High Court held that Section 3(c) was a valid piece of legislation and did not contravene any of the provisions of the Constitution. Following its judgment in Civil Revision No. 4...
Tag this Judgment!