Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2088; 2002(2)KarLJ292
Kumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. All the appellants are tenants except the appellant in W.A. No. 62 of 1999 is a Charitable Trust. However, all the appellants challenge the constitutional validity of Section 2(7)(b)(iii) and (iv) and the Explanation thereto of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 17th of December, 1997 disposed of a batch of writ petitions upholding the constitutional validity of the impugned sections.3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge these writ appeals have been filed.4. These writ appeals appear to be an exercise in futility since the introduction of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The Rent Act received the assent of the President on 22nd day of November, 2001 (Karnataka Act No. 34 of 2001). It was published in the Gazette on 27th of November, 2001 and came into force by a Notification dated 5-12-2001.5. Section 70 of the Rent Act repeals the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1961), Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC396; (1974)1SCC202; [1974]2SCR530; 1974(6)LC237(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J.1. This litigation, started in 1951, has lived long, although the main point on which the fate of the case rests is the construction of a contract between the Municipal Board, Bareilly (the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 1968) and the Thekedar under it of the Municipal market, one Habibullah (the father of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 1968). The present appellant is the legal representative of the defendant and has himself filed an appeal (C.A. No. 1728 of 1968) where the Board is the sole respondent. Instant or early justice seems impossible without radical re-orientation and systematic changes in the judicial process, as these two appeals, which have survived two decades, sadly illustrate.2. Now, a brief narration of the facts. Although the canvass has been spread out, the relevant dispute lies in a narrow compass, and can be resolved by a close look at the terms of Ex. '1' (substantially repeated in Ex. '4') and by applying settled rules which te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 13(1977)DLT323
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J. (1) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners, Shri Muni Lal Vohra and Shri Hira Lal Vohra, praying that the order (Annexure A.6), dated 19th June, 1974, whereby the Assistant Assessor and Collector, Delhi Municipal Corporation, enhanced the rateable value of the property No. 2537/X, known was RamJas Building, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, from Rs. 44,010 to Rs. 82,350 as well as the order of Shri O. P. Singla, Additional District, Judge, Delhi, dated 23rd April, 1976, upholding on appeal the aforesaid order of the Assistant Assessor and Collector be quashed. The Delhi Municipal Corporation has been imp leaded as the first respondent and Shri O. P. Singia has been imp leaded as the second respondent.(2) The petitioners are the owners of the aforesaid Ramjas Building situated on Plot No. Ii, Block No. Iv, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, which bears the Municipal No. 2537/X. The petitioners let out the entire ground floor of the building with attached bath and lav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1973RLR627
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This is an appeal by the tenant against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 13.10.72 by which he set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 7-10-1969 and directed eviction of the appellant. (2) The respondent landlady on April 17, 1965 filed an application under clause (g) of Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that the premises in dispute were required bonafide by the landlady for the purpose of re-building and such re-building could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. It was also alleged that the proposed reconstruction would not radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let and that the premises in dispute were in a dilapidated condition and it was in the public interest that the premises be reconstructed. It was further alleged that the reconstruction was necessary to meet the requirement of the petitioner and her fam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 155(2008)DLT440
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A lease deed was executed on 24.10.1996 by Smt. Shakun Vohra, the owner in favour of Ms. Rohini Varshnei as tenant (appellant herein) in respect of second floor of House No. G-72, 2nd Floor, Masjid Moth, Residential Scheme, New Delhi consisting of two rooms with one attached bathroom, kitchen, covered verandah, open terrace and servant's bathroom. The lease provided for a rent of Rs. 3,500/-per month for the premises and the fittings and fixtures. The tenant was also liable to pay Rs. 50/- as water charges and electricity charges had to be paid according to the bills received from the authorities.2. Smt. Shakun Vohra executed a registered sale deed dated 21.11.2001 in favour of Sh. R.B. Singh (respondent herein) in respect of the said second floor with terrace rights along with undivided, impartible and individual share in the plot measuring 180 square metres.3. The respondent served a notice through Counsel on the appellant dated 09.05.2002 informing her about...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 203 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 O R D E R 1. The revision petitioner is the respondent/tenant in the RCP No. 45/2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The respondents herein, who are landlords of the revision petitioner, instituted the above petition seeking an order of eviction in respect of the petition schedule building under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As per the pleadings in the petition and by the judgment impugned, it is revealed that a building facing east towards the Chittur Road is owned by the respondents. A portion in the upstairs, which is the petition schedule building was let out to the revision petitioner and he had been occupying the same as a lessee. On the southern side of the petition schedule building and towards the back side, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP70
Venkatesam, J.1. The only point for determination in this S.R. is, whether a revi-sion petition filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, XV of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is barred by limitation if not filed within 90 days from the date of the order as laid down by Role 41-A (2) of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). If that rule governs the case, the revision petition is barred by limitation and the petitioner should get the delay condoned on sufficient cause being shown. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the rule has no application to the case as it is governed by Section 22 of the Act, according to which the revision petition could be filed at any time.2. Considering the importance of the question raised, one of us (Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.) directed that the matter should be posted before a Bench. At our request, Sri G. Venkatarama Sastr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 20(1981)DLT22; 1981(2)DRJ153; ILR1982Delhi861
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 12/1/1979 of the Rent Control Tribunal passing the order of eviction under section 14(l)(e) of the Act. Mr. Rajiv Behl has raised a preliminary objection that this second appeal is barred by time. (2) Section 39 of the Act prescribes a period of 60 days for the filing of an appeal in this court from the date of the order of the Tribunal. Order 41 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the impugned order. Needless to say that the copy of the order must be a certified copy. Rule 2(b)of Chapter I-A of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court Vol. V, which are applicable to this court, requires the filing of a copy of the judgment of the court of first instance along with a copy of the order of the first appellate court. The appellant filed the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: August 30, 2013 + RC. Rev. No.26/2013 FEROZE ENTERPRISES Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Mohammad Abid, Adv. with Mr.Shariq Mohammad, Adv. versus MOHD. IQBAL & ANR Through + ..... Respondents Mr.Amit Gupta, Adv. with Ms.Sumati Jumrani, Adv. RC. Rev. No.27/2013 FEROZE AHMED Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Mohammad Abid, Adv. with Mr.Shariq Mohammad, Adv. versus MOHD. IQBAL & ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr.Amit Gupta, Adv. with Ms.Sumati Jumrani, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The abovementioned two petitions are filed by the petitioners under section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the eviction orders dated 12th September, 2012 passed by the learned Addl. Rent Controller (Central), Delhi, dismissing the leave to defend applications of the petitioners. As the facts in both the matters are common, both the petitions are decided by the common order.2. The respondents filed evic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1962P& H369
(1) Shri Sarup Singh and his sons brought a petition for ejectment of Messrs. Allen Berry Company(Calcutta) Private Limited, and Messrs. South Asia Industries Private Limited, from premises No. 5 Block M, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. While the case was pending, Messrs Allen Berry Company (Calcutta) Private Limited went into liquidation and its name was therefore, struck off the record. Messrs South Asia Industries Private Limited then made tow applications-one on the 10th of November, 1960, and the other on the 19th of November, 1960, alleging that the name of the tenant having been struck off the record the application of the landlords for ejectment of Messrs South Asia Industries Private Limited, who were merely sub-tenants, could not proceed as the case had ceased to be one between a landlord and a tenant. These applications were rejected by the Rent Controller. An appeal against this order was filed by Messrs South Asia Industries Private Limited but the same was dismissed on the g...
Tag this Judgment!