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!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC648; 2005(80)DRJ(Suppl)518; [2005(2)JCR71(SC)]; JT2005(1)SC1; 2005(1)KLT443(SC); (2005)2SCC271
B.P. Singh, J.1. In this appeal by special leave appellant Nathi Devi is the tenant while respondent Radha Devi Gupta is the landlord who filed an application for the eviction of the appellant on the ground that she required the premises for her bona fide personal need invoking the provisions of Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which, according to her, entitled her to immediate possession of the premises in question being a widow landlady. The appellant filed an affidavit and prayed for leave to defend on the ground that the petition raised many triable issues. The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by his judgment and order dated 12th November, 1997 after considering the submissions urged before him came to the conclusion that the tenant had failed to make out a case for grant of leave to defend as she had failed to raise any triable issue. He, therefore, allowed the petition under Section 14D of the Act and passed an order of evict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 13(1977)DLT22
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This is a revision petition on behalf of the tenant under provisio to sub-section (8) of section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 against the order dated June 4, 1976 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi rejecting her application seeking permission to contest the petition for eviction filed by the respondent against the petitioner under section 14-A read with section 14(1)(e) of the aforesaid Act. (2) The respondent Mr. P.N. Chopra, son of Mr. A.N. Chopra, filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner, Mrs. P.N. Karkhanis on the ground that the premises in suit were let out to the tenant-respondent for residential purposes are required bonafide by the respondent landlord who is the owner thereof for occupation as residence for himself and for members of his family, dependent upon him. It was further alleged that the respondent-landlord is a Chief Engineer, Metropolitan Transport Project Ministr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA (OS) NO. 118/2011 & CM No. 6572/2012 Reserved on:18. h December, 2012 Date of Decision:31. t January, 2013 % FAB INDIA OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Ajay Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.K. Mehta, Mr. Virender Mehta, Mr. Kunal Mehta and Mr. Gautam Mehta, Advocates. Versus S.N. SHEOPORI ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr. Sanjiv Sindhwani, Mr. Sahil Bhalaik and Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG SANJIV KHANNA, J: This judgment disposes of the first appeal filed by Fab India Overseas Private Limited and the cross-objections filed by Janak Mushran against the judgment and decree dated 4th July, 2011 passed by the single Judge in CS(OS) No. 246/2009 titled S.N. Sheopori and Janak Mushran v. Fab India Overseas Private Limited.2. Before dwelling into the disputed questions, we deem it appropriate to state the undis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1986)(8)LC207Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Madras has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order in appeal No. 136/82 (M) dated 12-4-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. In column No. 3 of the memorandum of appeal the date of service has been mentioned as 12;4-1982. The appellant had moved an application for amendment of the appeal and has requested for making the amendment to the effect that the date had been wrongly written as 12-4-1982 against the correct date of 27-4-1982. By a separate order dated 20-2-1986, the amendment of the appeal was allowed to the effect that para No. 3 of form E. A.3 should be read as 27-4-1982. In terms of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the appeal was to be filed within three months. By virtue of the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order No. GSR 597(E), dated 11-10-1982 the appeal could have been filed within six months. The appellant has filed an application for condonat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1981RLR164
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The appellants were the tenant of the respondent in the disputed premises situated at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. One of the terms of the lease dt. 17.9.53, was as follows : 'THATthe lessee shall not be entitled to sublet or part with possession of the premises without the written permission of the landlady provided that the lessee shall have the right to allow the use of the premises to their sister or associate concern, the liability of the lessee to pay to the landlady covenated rent thereforee remaining absolute.' (2) The respondent landlady on 9.3 1972, filed an eviction petition on the ground that the tenant had sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the tenanted premises to M/s Associated Traders and Engineers(P) Ltd., without her written consent. The case of the tenant was that M/s. Associated Traders and Engineers(P) Ltd., were their associate or a sister concern and they were using the premises with express written permission of the landlady ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(105)DRJ358
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The appellant, which is a private limited company, is the owner and landlord of property bearing No. 54, Janpath, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The respondent herein, namely, Bank of India, was inducted as a tenant initially on 21.4.1962 in respect of the basement and ground floor of the suit property. Further portions of the property were also let out to the respondent in stages. Particulars of all the leases and the portions let out thereby are as under:S. No. Particulars Terms of Lease Portions let outof Lease1. Lease deed 25 years with effect 3100 sq.ft on the ground dated 21.4.62 from 12.5.1961 with a floor and 3100 sq.ft inclause for renewal the basement @ Rs.3,833/- p.m.2. Lease deed 10 years with effect 1200 sq.ft. on the back portiondated 9.5.68 from 18.4.1966 of the first floor @ Rs.2,700/- p.m.3. Oral Lease W.e.f. 20.2.1970 Front portion of the first floor@ Rs.2,700/- p.m.4. Oral Lease - 500 sq.ft. on the first floor@ Rs.1,125/-...
Tag this Judgment!