Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)576; AIR1996SC966; 1996(1)ALT33(SC); JT1996(1)SC234; 1996(4)KarLJ103; 1996(1)SCALE298; (1996)3SCC75; [1996]1SCR439
ORDER1. The petitioners are challenging the constitutionality of Explanation II to Section 2(22) and Section 76 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 (30 of 1987) (for short, 'the Act') in this writ petition, apart from other provisions of the Act challenge to which is decided in other connected matters. In this case we confine our consideration to the validity of the above provisions. It is contended in the writ petition and argued by Shri R. Venugopal Reddy, their learned senior counsel, that ryotwari pattas having been granted under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion in Ryotwari) Act (37 of 1956) (for short, 'the Inams Abolition Act') and the same having attained finality, the legislature is devoid of power under the Act to set at naught the effect of the grant of ryotwari patta to the archakas, service holders or employees covered under the Act by a legislative side-wind. It is their case that by gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1978RLR88
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This is an appeal instituted by the landlord U/S 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against an order whereby his petition for eviction U/S 14(1)(e) has been dismissed solely on the ground that the petition cannot be instituted because Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 states that no suit for eviction can be filed without obtaining permission from the Competent Authority if the premises are situated in a slum area. The landlord did not dispute the fact that the premises are situated in the slum area and are covered by the Act, but the contention was that on account of the amendment made by the Amendment Act of 1976, it was no longer necessary to get permission from the Competent Authority as the new Chapter Iiia had introduced a new procedure for the trial of applications U/S 14(1)(e) and the newly introduced Section 14A. The Rent Controller found that as far as Section 14A was concerned, it had an over-riding effect over all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 49(1993)DLT724; 1993(26)DRJ23; 1993RLR258
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, after the courts of the Addl. Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal have held by concurrent judgments that the petitioner, on the facts of the case, was not entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1957, (for short 'the Act') and was hit by terms of the proviso thereto.(2) It is an admitted fact that the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, had availed of benefit of section 14 (2) of the Act, and it was admittedly a case of second default. There is no denial of the fact that notice of demand had been served by the landlords/respondents, and received by the petitioner/tenant. There is also no denial of the fact that at the time the notice was received, there had been a default in the payment of rent for preceding three consecutive months. It is also admitted that rent only of one month was sent by money order, after receipt of the notice and during ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.2428/2015 & CM APPLs. 4371/2015 & 12669/2016 Judgment reserved on 30 November, 2018 Judgment pronounced on 27 August, 2019 ........ Petitioners Through : Mr. S.N. Chaudhri and Ms. Shruti Chaudhri, TEK CHAND NARULA AND OTHERS versus Advocates. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, Mr. Krishna Kumar, and Mr. Siddharth Jha, Advs. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. R.N. Vats, Standing Counsel & Mr.Akshat Gupta, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.:1. The petitioners, who are the progeny of one Daulat Ram Narula, have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail, essentially, the misuse charges and damages for unauthorized construction sought to be levied by the respondents qua property described as 1/90, P Block, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as property). 1.1 Portions of the property were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1003; [1966]2SCR544
Sarkar, J. 1. This appeal was filed with special leave of this Court granted on August 14, 1964. Various interesting questions of law were sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant but in our view they do not arise at this stage. The appeal must be confined to the points decided in the courts below. 2. The case appears to us to be somewhat out of the ordinary. One Mehtab Singh was the owner of a certain building known as Akbar Building, situate in Mohalla Ganda Nala, Gali Rajan, Delhi. The appellant was a tenant under him in respect of certain accommodation in the building. On June 3, 1955, Mehtab Singh filed a suit under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 against the appellant for his ejectment. On October 11, 1956 that suit was decreed. The appellant filed an appeal against that decree which, however, was dismissed on March 27, 1957. He thereafter moved the High Court of Punjab in revision but here also he was unsuccessful. The precise date of the dismissal of the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 9(1973)DLT491; 1973RLR509
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) This revision has been referred for decision by a larger bench because of divergence of views expressed in the cases- Vas Dev v. Sohan Singh and others (1968) D.L.T. 492 and Inder Lal Sapra v. Brij Mohan (S.A.O. 300 of 1971) decided on May 24, 1972 on the question whether a judgment-debtor tenant.. during execution of the decree for eviction against him, on the ground of personal bona fide need of the landlord, can agitate the question that the need of the landlord had ceased to exist and, thereforee, the decree was inexecutable. (2) In a suit for eviction filed by the respondent (hereafter called 'the landlord') under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act. 1952 (hereafter called 'the 1952 Act') for eviction of the appellant (hereafter called 'the tenant') on the ground that the premises were required by him bona fide, the trial court on December 21, 1955 granted a decree for eviction in his favor on the basis of a compromise. According to the compromise, the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1981Cal428
ORDERDipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The plaintiff is the Receiver appointed in Suit No. 1683 of 1964 (Sitaram Dehi v. Basdeo Dehi & Ors.) inter alia, over premises No. 13, Pretoria Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises).2. M/s. Loch Lomond Lodge (P) Ltd., the defendant, was a monthly tenant of the said premise's at a rent of Rs. 885.50 per month payable according to the English Calendar.3. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against the defendant for eviction on the grounds of wrongful addition and alteration to the premises and wrongful sub-letting. The plaintiff also claims mesne profits and damages.4. The plaintiff alleges that since the institution of this suit a number of challans in respect of rent deposited by the defendant have not been received from the Rent Controller Calcutta between January 1968 till October 1972 and that the defendant has not also made any deposit of rent in this Court -- during the said period.5. It is contended that the deposits of ren...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991MP316; 1991(0)MPLJ418
Faizanuddin, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Madhya Pradesh High Court by the defendants has been directed against the orders passed on 29-6-1990 to 11-7-1990 by the learned single Judge of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 227 of 1990.2. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal may be stated thus: The Indian Olympic Association/respondent No. 3, herein, is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It consists of various Federations which are affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association. The Management of the Indian Olympic Association (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.O.A.') is controlled by a duly elected Executive Council in accordance with rules for a term of 4 years. A Special General Meeting may be summoned at any time by the President of I.O.A. at his discretion or it is convened on a written requisition signed by the Presidents and Secretaries of not less than 15 Member-Units within one month from the date of recei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by petitioner-tenant, is to the order dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure P1), whereby the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Gurgaon has dismissed the two applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as the applications had been filed on the ground that the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, had been made applicable to the area where the suit property is situated w.e.f. 02.06.2008 and as such, the same could not effect the litigation already initiated. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mansoor Khan Vs. Moti Ram Harbhajan Kharat AIR 2002 SC 2396. An earlier application had also been dismissed on 05.08.2010 and the proposed amendment in the preliminary objection No.5 could not be allowed as it would lead to framing of a new case and controvert the admission made in para No.6 of the amended written statement. The respondent-landlady filed a civil suit on 25.07.2007 (Annexure P9) for poss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1977Cal199,(1977)1CompLJ175(Cal),82CWN252
M.N. Roy, J.1. This appeal from appellate decree is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 30, 1970, made in Title Appeal No. 337 of 1970 by Shri S. K. Dutta. Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore, affirming thereby the judgment and decree dated January 30, 1970, made in Title Suit No. 234 of 1968, by Shri D. K, Panda, Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore.2. The plaintiff-respondent, being the owner of the premises in suit brought the Title Suit in question against the defendant appellant for recovery of khas possession by eviction and for mesne profits and also for compensation for damages Caused to the same. It was alleged that the defendant appellant was a tenant in respect of two bed rooms, one privy and one verandah at a monthly rent of Rupees 35/-, payable according to English calendar month. It was contended that the tenant defendant broke open a portion of the wall in between the bed rooms of his tenancy, made a hole in the wall of the privy and broke other portion...
Tag this Judgment!