Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION(C) NO.26 OF2020MANISH KUMAR PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER RESPONDENT(S) WITH WRIT PETITION (C) No.53/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.28/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.47/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.27/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.73/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.328/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.210/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.191/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.164/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.163/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.166/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.173/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.182/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.176/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.177/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.257/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.341/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.267/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.333/2020 1 WRIT PETITION (C) No.337/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.388/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.402/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.390/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.393/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.783/2020 TRANSFERRED CASE(C) No.228/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.579/2020 WRIT PETITI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR5599
ORDERManjula Chellur, J.1. The petitioner in HRRP 454/02 and 455/02 is none other than the tenant under the respondent landlord at premises No. 609, V. Main, (Sanchi Honnamma Road), Pipe Line, Srinagar, Banashankari I Stage, I Block, Bangalore-50. The entire premises consists of two non-residential and one residential portions. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a non-residential premises taken on lease for the purpose of conducting tuition. The brief facts that led to filing of these revisions petitions are as under:2. The respondent-landlord has instituted HRC Petition 10115/00 Under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act i.e. on the ground of tenant being a chronic defaulter and also for bonafide and reasonable occupation on the ground that his brother is no more and he has to provide accommodation to the wife and children of his brother. In the adjacent portion itself, the petitioner is living along with his wife. Earlier, HRC 437/94 was instituted against...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(4)KarLJ105; 2009(2)KCCR991; 2009(2)AIRKarR76; AIR2009NOC1284(D.B)
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Appellant was the defendant and Respondent was the plaintiff In O.S. No. 4747/2000 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore City. Suit filed by the respondent for decree of ejectment and for damage manse profits against the appellant having been decreed by Trial Court on 04.04.2007, this appeal is filed questioning the same. For convenience, parties will be referred to hereinafter with reference to their rank in the suit.2. The preface of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paras 2 and 3 in the decision of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amritlal and Co., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 397, is apt to be noticed in this appeal by a Public Sector Bank - appellant, to consider the point raised by it for our decision. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:2. It is unfortunate, an eviction petition which was filed on 13.9.1985 still the parties are battling to find which court would have the jurisdiction. Whether the Court of Rent Controller under the Delhi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj819; 2003(4)WLC790
Goyal, J.1. Following common question of law arises in these four appeals:-'Whether the proceedings for fixation of standard rent under the repealed Act pending on the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Rent control Act, 2001, would be governed by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950 (for short the old Act) or by the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 (New Act) which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.03.?'2. Civil First Appeal Nos. 294/03, and 373/2003, respectively filed by tenants and landlord are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2003, passed in Civil Suit No. 28/2000, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, while dismissing the suit for eviction fixed Rs. 2500/- per month as standard rent under Section 6 of the Old Act. The tenants have come against the order of fixation of standard rent while the landlord has filed the appeal challenging the judgment and decree dismissing the suit for eviction as well ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(2)CTC129; (2003)2MLJ164
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. 1. In all these writ petitions the validity of the Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2 of 1996) whereunder Clause (f) was added to the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as Act 3 of 1922) is being challenged. Under the said Amendment Act 2 of 1996 the properties owned by the religious institutions are exempted from the purview of the Act 3 of 1922.2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the property belonging to various religious institutions. The Division Bench referred these cases by their order dated 15.10.1996 to a larger Bench, as a doubt is raised as to whether the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council, 1972 (85) L.W 760 dealt with the right of the tenants under Section 9 of the main Act 3 of 1922 alone or also dealt with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. This is plaintiff's appeal from Judgment, Order and Decree dated 28/11/2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panaji Goa (trial Court, for short) in Special Civil Suit No. 46/96/B. 2. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said suit. 3. The Plaintiff had filed the said suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises and for mesne profits calculated at the rate of Rs. 41,610.24/- per month w.e.f. 1/11/1995 until the defendant hands over effective possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and along with interest on the said amount calculated at the rate of 18% per annum. 4. Case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows: The plaintiff is owner of part of the second floor of the premises at Diamond Chambers, 18th June Road, Panaji-Goa admeasuring about 2600 square feet (suit premises). The construction of the suit premises was completed in the first week of November...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC265; (1977)1SCC750; [1977]2SCR421
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises a question of some interest and importance for decision. The question is whether the provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 96 of 1956, override those of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958. If they do, no person can institute any suit or proceeding for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area without the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. For the sake of brevity we will refer to these two enactments as the Slum Clearance Act' and the 'Delhi Rent Act respectively. 2. The respondent is a government servant employed in the Railway Ministry (Railway Board) and was in that capacity occupying quarters allotted to him by the Government at Nanakpura New Delhi. By a letter dated December 24, 1975 the Assistant Director of Estates called upon the respondent to vacate the quarters on or before December 31, 1975 on the ground that he owned a residential house and w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2003)135PLR250
Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner is a tenant on an industrial Plot in Chandigarh. Respondents have filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) in the year 1999. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, a Notification was issued by the Chandigarh Administration which reads as under:GOVERNMENT OF INDIAEXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITYCHANDIGARH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2002(KARTIKA 16, 1924 SAKA)FINANCE DEPARTMENTNOTIFICATION THE 7th NOVEMBER, 2002No. l985-UTFI(l)2002/9055 - in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 read with the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Extension to Chandigarh) Act,1974 (Act No. 54 of 74) and the Govt. of India's notification No.5.0.22(5) dated 8th January, 1950., the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is pleased to direct that the provisions of the aforesaid Act shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD145
C.V. Ramulu, J.1. The only substantial question of law that falls for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the appellate Court was justified in refusing to consider the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 636, General Administration (Accommodation-A) Department, dated 29-12-1983 on the premise that the said issue has already been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in M. Sreeramulu v. Tahera Yousuf Kadri : 2000(3)ALD173 (FB), and in not examining the validity of the said G.O. in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra : AIR1998SC602 .2. A few facts, which are relevant, may be noticed as under:3. The appellant is the defendant/ tenant. Respondent No. 1/landlord filed a suit in O.S. No. 3756 of 1997 on the file of the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property, for arrears of rent and for future mesne profits. It was the case respondent-plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002IIAD(Delhi)261; 95(2002)DLT508; 2002(61)DRJ457; 2002RLR149
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner primarilychallenges the provisions of Sections 4, 6, 9 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 beingviolative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioneralso seeks a direction to the first respondent to rationalise the provisions of DelhiRent Control Act so that the petitioner is assured of receiving reasonable rent for hisproperties let out to the tenants. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a building bearing No. 40-42, Janpath, New Delhi. It is claimed that the said building was completed in the year 1938 at a cost of Rs. 2,50,362.50 and the same was let out to various tenants about 40-50 year ack. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the rent is pegged at a very low level which is highly unjust, unfair and unreasonable. The petitioner claims that his rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21of the Constitution have been abridged by ...
Tag this Judgment!