Court : Delhi
Reported in : 24(1983)DLT355
M.L. Jain, J. (1) On 6-7-1962 an agreement of lease was reached between the respondent Smt. Girnari Devi and Gopal Dass, Dev Kumar and Chatur Bhuj Aggarwal (herein the Aggarwals) in respect of the disputed premises No. 20/1, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. One of the material conditions of this agreement was that the period of lease shall be ten years with effect from 15-7-1962. Another important term was that the Aggarwal were authorised to assign the demised premises for the use of any of the companies in which they or any of them is a director or for the use of any of the firms in which they or any of them is a partner. Out of them, Gopaldas and Dev Kumar arc since December 1959 two of the directors of M/s. Devi Dayal Metal Industries (Pvt) Ltd. (herein the appellants). The correspondence that ensued between the parties with regard to the payment of rent from 21-5-1963 onwards shows that rent was payable and was paid by the appellants. Chatur Bhuj Aggarwal has signed all these letters as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1998)119PLR14
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. This is a regular first appeal against judgment and decree dated 31st July 1996, decreeing the suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits amounting to Rs. 18,700/- up to 17th January 1994, along with pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 6,865/- per month and interest @ 15% per annum.2. Plaintiff/respondent Amar Nath Jindal is the owner and landlord of property known as Jindal House bearing No. 270/2-3, Shri Asha Ram Road, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi. He had let out the ground floor and mezzanine floor of the aforesaid property for a period of five years w.e.f. 1st January 1989 to 31st December 1993 at a rent of Rs. 6865/- per month inclusive of all rates and taxes. This lease deed dated 8th November 1989 Ex.PW2/D-15 was duly executed and registered. This lease deed also provided for a renewal clause. Since the defendant did not get the lease renewed by giving one month's notice, before expiration of the term of the least on 31st December 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1988Delhi103
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) In this suit the plaintiffs seek the following reliefs against the defendants in respect of the itemises in dispute comprising the first floor premises of* the house known as 99-Anand Lok, New Delhi and the second floor in the annexe premises and the car parking space on the ground floor, therein :(a) restraining defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs their employees representatives, and/or causing obstruction in any manner whatsoever, from going to and using the 1st floor premises and the Car Park space at ground floor, of the house known as 99, Anand Lok, New Delhi. (B)restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs, in respect of the premises, given to plaintiff No. 1 on rent, in house No. 99, Anand Lok, New Delhi. (C)to pass a decree in the sum) of Rs. 1,04,000 as compensation for damages caused to the plaintiff. (D)a decree for further damages at the rate of Rs. 3100 per month and Rs. 500 per day from 5-5-1982 till the date th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003VIIAD(Delhi)284; 104(2003)DLT1018
C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. By way of the present petition the petitioner assails the order dated 28th May, 2001 passed by Shri G.P. Thareja, Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi setting aside the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller and dismissing the eviction petition.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of premises bearing Flat No. 302, Mansarover Building, 90, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The said premises was let out to the respondent vide lease deed dated 21st February, 1978 for a period of three years. Even after the expiry of the said period the respondent continued to retain the said premises. In April, 1986 the rate of rent of premises was Rs. 3,128/- per month. From August, 1989 the respondent without any notice from the petitioner under Section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended in the year 1988 started sending cheques for payment of rent of the said premises at the rate of Rs. 3,150/- per month. It is alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1989Delhi173; 1989RLR186
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The appellant herein was defendant in the suit (S. No. 108(80), instituted by the respondent in respect to a plot of land bearing No. E-2, Bali Nagar, New Delhi, which was alleged to have been let out to him under an agreement dated 22nd May, 1971 initially for a period of 11 months and extended from time to tims up to 22nd February, 1976. The suit was for recovery of possession on the plea that she tenancy of the defendant (appellant herein), had come to an end by efflux of time, having nut been renewed after 22nd of February, 1976 but nevertheless as a measure of abundant caution, the plaintiff also served a notice of termination of tenancy on the defendant with effect from 22nd March, 1977, by means of notice dated 28th February, 1977 duly served upon him, and that since the defendant had refused to surrender possession despite this notice, the suit was necessitated. (2) The suit was contested on a number of pleas, including denial of status of the plaintiff a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 40(1990)DLT82; 1990RLR95
R.N. Pyne, J. (1) This Regular First Appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant Sfari Mahavir Prashad against the decree passed by the Additional District Judge dated 10th July, 1986 in Suit No. 224 of 1984 filed by this plaintiffs/respondents herein. The said decree was passed in favor of the plaintiffs/respondents for possession of the portion comprising of two rooms, one kitchen and common latrine and bath room on the ground floor of the property bearing No. 4759, Deputy Gaoj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, and for damages for use and occupation with effect from 1st April, 1983 to 31st July, 1984 @ Rs.50U.00 per month as also for further damages at the same rate from 1st August, 1984 till recovery of possession. (2) In the plaint it is stated by the plaintiffs that they are the owners of property No. 4759. Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, which was construct- ed on plot No 5. It is further slated that they purchased the property by virtue of different registered sale deeds from its previ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1994Delhi112; 51(1993)DLT334; 1993(27)DRJ144
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners mainly seek the following reliefs:- 1.Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD' for short) under section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'DMC Act') and those issued by the New Delhi Municipal Committee ('NDMC' for short) under section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act ('PM Act' for short) as extended to Delhi, on the properties situated within their respective areas; 2.A writ in the nature of direction or order declaring that the words 'be precluded from objecting to any assessment made by the Commissioner in respect of such land or building of which he is the owner or occupier' appearinginsub-section(3)ofsection 131 of the Dmc Act are unconstitutional, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice; and 3.A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the municipal authorities (MCD and NDMC) to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1995IAD(Delhi)239; AIR1995Delhi154; 1995(32)DRJ41
Swatanter Kumar, J.(1) The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. l,10,000.00 with costs and future interest. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the Principal of Government Senior School, and, at the time of institution of the suit, was working in Government Co-educational Senior Secondary School, Issapur, Delhi. The plaintiff, along with one Ishwar Dass Mahajan, had taken on rent the premises bearing No. F-122, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs. 350.00 exclusive of electric and water chargers vide lease deed dated 27th May, 1964 from the defendant.' The lease deed dated 27th May, 1964 provided the terms and conditions which were to govern the relationship of the landlord and the tenant. Clause (f) of the lease deed reads as under :- 'NOT to use the said premises or any part thereof for any purpose other than for residence or for school but in case of opening any school, not to take any third person or other person(s) as partner(s) a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 113(2004)DLT788; 2004(77)DRJ82
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. The petitioner herein filed a suit for possession/ejectment, arrears of rent and damages/mesne profit against the defendants/respondents alleging therein that premises in question were let out to the respondents/ defendants jointly on monthly rental of Rs. 2500/- vide agreement dated 4.9.77. The tenancy commenced on 1.10.77. Rent was increased from time-to-time @ 10%. For the period from 1.9.98 to 31.8.2001, defendants/respondents paid rent @ 3327/- per month. Then on 28.7.2001 plaintiff served a legal notice on the defendant under Section 6-A read with Section 8 of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') notifying thereby that the rent will be increased by 10% with effect from 1.9.2001. The said legal notice was duly served on the defendants/respondents. Since the monthly rent of the demised premises becomes Rs. 3659/- with effect from 1.9.2001 which is in excess of Rs. 3500/-, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act cease to be applicable to the demised premi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 121(2005)DLT65
A.K. Sikri, J.1. CA No. 1168/2002 is filed by the three applicants who claim that they are the owners of the property bearing Municipal No. 16, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the demised property'). Smt. Ram Pyari Sethi, their mother and predecessor-in-interest of this property, had granted lease of this property to Bharat Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. (now in liquidation) (hereinafter called as 'the company') vide written deed dated 11th June, 1965. The property was meant for personal office of the Managing Director Mr. Raunaq Singh and a guest house. The tenancy commenced from 1st April, 1964 for a period of five years ending on 31st March, 1969. Rent of the demised premises was fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The demised premises were, however, not vacated by the company after the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy.2. Some time in the year 1990, the company became sick and consequently it made reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Re...
Tag this Judgment!