Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi210
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) Messrs Karan Chand Prem Chand Private Limited known as Sarabhai Chemicals are occupying as tenants a portion of the ground floor, including a loft. of building No. 12. Block No. 3. Asaf Ali Road. New Delhi. At first rent was being paid at the rate of Rs. 1,250.00 per month besides house-tax and actual charges for water and electricity. With effect from February 1. 1958, the rent was increased to Rs. 1,750.00 per month. House-tax and actual charges for water and electricity were in addition to that. (2) On January 4. 1961. Sarabhai Chemicals applied, under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for fixation of standard rent. At that time the premises belonged to Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh and his wife. Shrimati Lajwanti. and their son Gurbachan Singh. During the pendency of the proceedings the property was purchased by Messrs Urvinder Estates Private Limited. Afterwards Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh also died. (3) The new la...
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!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2012; (1980)2SCC120; [1980]2SCR746
A.D. Koshal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated August 7, 1979, of a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi accepting a petition made by the landlady for revision of the order of an Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter called the Controller) of Delhi refusing to direct eviction of the tenant.2. The landlady had sought eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground covered by Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), namely, that she required them bona fide for occupation as a residence for herself. Her application being triable in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 25B of the Act, the tenant sought the Controller's leave to contest it on grounds which were stated in his affidavit. The leave was granted and thereafter the tenant filed a written statement contesting his eviction which was ultimately disallowed. The learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 44(1991)DLT678; 1991(21)DRJ122
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) This is landlord's revision petition filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), assailing the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi passed on 19th July, 1985 whereby his petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act was dismissed.(2) The petitioner had approached the Rent Controller with the aforesaid eviction petition filed on 23rd January, 1981 for order of eviction against the respondent Surinder Kumar Sharma, a tenant under him in respect to premises consisting of one room, one kitchen and a common bath room and latrine on the ground floor of premises bearing No. 2-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, of which the petitioner claims to be the owner/landlord. The petition was based on the plea that the petitioner had a large family consisting of himself, his wife, aged mother, six sons-two of whom were married, and a married daughter, living in Delhi and the accomodation which he had in his occ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1991Ker132
Bhat, J.1. Revision petitioner is the second respondent in RCP 5 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, filed by the landlords for eviction of the tenant as well as the alleged sub-tenant (revision petitioner) under the provisions of Section 11 of Kerala Act, 2 of 1965. Along with the eviction petition, the landlords applied for issue of a commission and a Commissioner was appointed ex parte. The Commissioner submitted a report. It is pointed out that the revision petitioner was present when the Commissioner inspected the premises. The report was filed in 1986. Four years later, the revision petitioner filed I. A. 1313 of 1990 to . set aside the report dated 22-2-1986 and to appoint a fresh Commissioner to undertake the work with the assistance of an expert engineer. The petition was opposed by the landlords and dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that there was no reason to set aside the report and that the petition was highly belated and devoid of bona f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3580; 93(2001)DLT164(SC); JT2001(7)SC477; 2001(5)SCALE509; (2001)8SCC397
Misra, J.1. Leave granted.2. It is unfortunate, an eviction petition which was filed on the 13th September 1985 still the parties are battling to find which court would have the jurisdiction. Whether the court of Rent Controller under Delhi Rent Control Act or ordinary Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter in issue? As discipline and culture in every walk of life is essential for smooth functioning in all its activities, similarly judicial culture and discipline has to be followed in order to achieve the desired result viz. to give litigant justice in the shortest period of time. Every legislation legislates for the benefit of its subject but many a times, raising issues for every thing and stretching it too long percolates the very objective for which it is made. With the increasing complexities of laws coupled with faulty legislation, using inappropriate language, a stress is created which the courts through its judicial interpretations have been attempting to simpl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1564; 1986(1)SCALE989; (1986)3SCC62; 1986(2)LC498(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The Madras-Bangalore Transport Company, a partnership firm, became the tenant of the disputed premises in July 1962. In 1967, there appear to have been some disputes between the partners of the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company. The disputes were settled by arbitration. The partnership firm was split up into two firms, the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company (West) and the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company (East) The business of the old firm was also divided between the new firms area-wise. Under the arrangement each of the new firms was forbidden from carrying on operations in the territory allotted to the other. However, the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company (East) appears to have ceased to function for practical purposes. Even so, the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company (West) could not operate in the territory allotted to the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company (East). So the partners of the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company (West) founded a Limited compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 46(1992)DLT191
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this petition are that Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, petitioner herein, filed an eviction petition against Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent. Control Act as amended by the Amend Act, 1988 for recovery of immediate possession of premises situated at plot No. 9 Block No. 159. 4, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. Summons under Iii Schedule of the Delhi Rent Control Act were issued and the respondent appeared and filed an application seeking leave to defend the petition Along with an affidavit of Shri Ramesh Chandra, Executive Director of the respondent company. The facts as alleged in the affidavit are that the petitioner is residing at 27, Akbar Road which is known as 9, Man Singh Road having an area of 5 acres on which a two-storeyed building has been constructed. There are 30 large size rooms in that bungalow besides servant quarters numbering about 20 and garages etc. and the petitioner has more than three rooms in her exclusive p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3923; [2000]99CompCas383(SC); JT1999(8)SC66; 1999(6)SCALE441; (1999)9SCC334; [1999]Supp3SCR461
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.The Facts:1. These three appeals raise three different questions relating to the construction and interpretation of Section 85 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 'new Act' for short) which contains repeal and saving provision of the three Acts, namely, the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the 'old Act' for short) the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (the 'Foreign Awards Act' for short).2. This Section 85 of the new Act we reproduce at the outset:85. Repeal and saving - (1) The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 (6 of 1937), the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) and the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (45 of 1961) are hereby repealed.(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, -(a) the provisions of the said enactments shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings which commenced before this Act came into force unless otherwise agreed by the parties but this Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1975Delhi236
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Civil Writ Petition came up initially for hearing before B. C. Misra J. who considered that it should be heard by a larger Bench. The Civil Writ Petition then came up before a Division Bench consisting of V. S. Deshpande and H B. C. Misra JJ. who referred it to a Full Bench. Although the Division Bench framed certain questions, which will be referred to later, for consideration by the Full Bench, the counsel arc agreed that the entire Writ Petition has been referred for being heard and decided by the Full Bench. (2) The Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner. M. v. Soi, praying that certain orders passed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee assessing the annual value of the petitioner's house for purposes of house-tax for the year 1963-64. 1964.65 ?'J 1965-66 be quashed. The respondents to the Writ Petition are (1) The New Delhi Municipal Committee, and (2) Shri S. C. Vaish, Additional District Magistrate, Delhi. (3) It is necessary at this st...
Tag this Judgment!