Court : Delhi
Reported in : 63(1996)DLT577
C.M. Nayafr, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of three appeals S.A.O- Nos. 202181, 212181 and 13190 as they raise common questions of law The first two appeals arise out of judgment dated September 17, 1979 of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, and judgment dated May 7, 1981 passed by Rent Control Tribunal. (2) The respondent filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on August 21, 1978 for eviction of the appellants from one big room, two small rooms, verandah, part of open terrace in front etc. forming part of the tenancy premises on second floor, plot No. 27, House No. 4779, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The allegations were made that Kishori Lal, since deceased, was tenant under the respondent in respect of the above said premises since July 18, 1953 at rental of Rs. 771- per month, but has neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent within two months from service of notice dated December 18, 1977. The petition f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999(49)DRJ342
Usha Mehra, J.1. Property bearing No.D-922, New Friends Colony, New Delhi was let out to respondent No.1 i.e. M/s International Amusements Ltd. (in short IAL) on a monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- vide registered lease deed dated 1st April,1987. On expiry of the lease period, petitioner herein let out the property to respondent No.1 vide registered lease deed dated 1st April,1990 on a monthly rent of Rs.16,500/-. Respondent No.2 Shri Sharat Chander Dass was the Director of respondent No.1. Hewas in occupation of the suit premises on account of being the Director of respondent No. 1. The petitioner wanted possession of the suit premises, thereforee, filed a suit against respondent No. 1 after the expiry of the lease period. Decree of possession was passed in her favor and against respondent No.1, its servants, agents and employees etc. vide decree dated 26th May,1993. Pursuance to that decree petitioner filed execution proceedings and obtained warrants of possession. Respondent No.2 filed obj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 154(2008)DLT211; 2008(106)DRJ705
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd November, 2007 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby an application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.2. The brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent filed an Eviction Petition alleging that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of premises at Rs. 500/- per month including water and electricity charges. This tenancy was from month-to-month. The petitioner stopped paying rent to the respondent from January, 1989. The respondent then sent a legal notice dated 17.10.2000 claiming arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy of the petitioner.3. This notice was duly replied by the petitioner vide reply dated 9th November, 2006 wherein petitioner denied the title of the respondent over the suit property and set up a title in himself and his wife. After this denial of title by the petitioner herein, the respondent filed a suit for possession of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1984J& K56
ORDERV. Khalid, C.J. 1. The tenant of a building against whom proceedings are pending under the J. & K. Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, has filed this writ petition, challenging the validity of Sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act and praying that the word 'shall' occurring in that section should be interpreted to mean 'may'. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and that of the 2nd respondent. This writ petition is the finale of the various methods adopted by the petitioner to protract the rent control proceedings pending against him for ejectment He failed to deposit the rent as directed in the rant control suit. Necessary consequences as laid down in Section 12 (4) of the Act followed. I do not think it necessary to go into the further details of the proceedings in the suit since it is not necessary for the disposal of this writ petition. 3. The challenge against Sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act is based on its violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~32 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:09. h January, 2018 R.C. REV. 7/2018 SUN N SHADE OPTICIANS & ORS. .... PETITIONERS Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi and Mr. Sagar Chaturvedi, Advocates versus SHYAM SUNDER BUDHIRAJA ..... RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Pradeep K. Bakshi, Mr. Sachin Setia and Mr. Puneet Khurana, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) CAV132018 1. Since the learned counsel for the caveator has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged. R.C. REV. 7/2018 and CM8842018 (stay) and CM8852018 (Exemption) 2. The petitioners are admittedly the tenants in premises described as shop bearing no.6 in property no.13/9, W.E.A. Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, admeasuring 9 x 25ft. (hereinafter referred to as the demised property), having been let out originally for commercial purposes by late Sh. Chaman Lal Budhiraja, the father of RCR7/2018 Page 1 of 6 the respondent, during his lifetime, in favour of Sh. Vidya Sagar Churamani, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~8 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-"26th April, 2018 R.C. (REV.) 515/2011 ABDUL SATTAR (DECD.) THRU LRS. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Bhalla, Adv. Versus MOHD. WAKIL & ORS. Through: ........ RESPONDENTS Mr. Nikhil Malhotra & Mr. Vinod Malhotra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was impleaded as respondent in the eviction case (E-352/2009) instituted by the respondents herein on 13.08.1998 seeking order of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The case was contested and at the stage of trial, both sides led evidence. The Additional Rent Controller, by judgment dated 24.09.2011, repelled all the defences taken by the petitioners and granted eviction order which is under challenge by the petition at hand.2. The bone of contention here concerns premises described as property bearing No.946, Haveli Azam Khan, Jama Masjid, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :28th May, 2018 Date of Decision:1. t June, 2018 + RFA2492017 SANJAY KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ghanshyam Thakur, Advocate (M:85868. 6803). RAJESH KUMAR versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ravi Bassi and Mr. Sanyam Malik, Advocates (M:98100. 1293). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.JUDGMENT1 Smt. Laxmi Devi was the owner of property bearing Nos. Y-316 and Y-317 which is a land measuring 50 sq. yds. (25 sq. yds. each) situated in J.J.Colony, Camp No.1, Nangloi, Delhi-110041 (hereinafter, suit property).2. The Respondent/Plaintiff - Mr. Rajesh Kumar (hereinafter, Plaintiff) and the Appellant/Defendant - Mr. Sanjay Kumar (hereinafter, Defendant) are the sons of Smt. Laxmi Devi. A mutual agreement was duly signed by her by which she fixed the share amongst her three sons i.e. the Plaintiff, the Defendant and the Sh. Ajay Kumar. The manner in which the division was made by her is contained in the said mutu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h July, 2018 RSA892017 & CM No.10607/2017 (for stay) KULDEEP SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Versus KHAZANCHI PRASAD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW Through: Mr. V. Shukla, Adv. ..... Respondent 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree (dated 22nd December, 2016 in RCA No.of the Court of Additional District Judge -02 (NE)]. allowing the First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the respondent/plaintiff against the order [dated 18th April, 2016 in CS No.44of the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, North East]. on an application of the appellant/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC rejecting the plaint in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration as null and void and an outcome of fraud and misrepresentation, the irrevocable General Power of Attorney executed by the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d August, 2019 + CM(M) 1229/2019 and CM Appl. 37697/2019 BHAGWAN DASS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate (M:98689. 5967). versus USHA TYAGI ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) CM Appl. 37698/2019 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM(M) 1229/2019 And CM Appl. 37697/2019 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge in an appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 wherein leave to amend the written statement by the... Petitioner-Tenant was rejected.3. The background is that a petition under Section 14D came to be filed by Smt. Usha Tyagi before the Rent Control Tribunal. The property in question is property bearing No.WZ-41, Basai Dara Pur New Delhi-110015. Ld. counsel submits that the... Petitioner herein was g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1220 of 2009 KIRSHNA TEXPORT & CAPITAL MARKETS LTD. . Appellant Versus ILA A. AGRAWAL & ORS. . Respondents JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against the order dated 6.5.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejecting Criminal Application No.2174 of 2007 preferred by the appellant for leave to appeal.2. On 14.09.1996 a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on behalf of the appellant to M/S Indo French Bio Tech Enterprises Ltd (the Company for short). The notice stated that a cheque bearing No.364776 dated 8.9.1996 drawn by the Company on Dena Bank, New Marine Lines, Mumbai in favour of the appellant was returned on 10.9.1996 with endorsement funds insufficient. The notice therefore called upon the addressee to make the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of the ...
Tag this Judgment!