Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1986All270
ORDERS.D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a civil revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 2. A Suit No. 1 of 1983 was filed by one Smt. Nirmal Kumari, the opposite party, against the revisionist in the Court of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Fatehpur, in hiscapacity as the Judge, Small Cause Courts at Fatehpur, for ejectment and recovery of arrearsof rent etc. 3. The case of the plaintiff opposite party was that the revisionist had obtained the premises in dispute on rent on 27th June, 1979, and had executed a rent note and delivered it to the plaintiff opposite party. On that date, he paid rent only for one month and, thereafter, did not pay the rent, hence the suit . 4. The revisionist contested the suit on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He did not execute the rent note dated 27th June, 1979, nor did he sign any such document nor did he pay rent for the month of July 1979. 5. During the trial of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(2)SC435; 1991(1)SCALE810; (1991)3SCC114; [1991]2SCR517; 1991(2)LC241(SC)
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. Special leave is allowed in both the cases. Since they involve decision of some common questions of law they are being disposed of together by this judgment.2. The appellant Surayya Begum in the first case claims herself as one of the nine legal representatives of Khalil Raza, the original tenant of the premises in question, and is objecting to the execution of the decree of eviction obtained by the landlord-respondent No. 1 against the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 who are sons, daughters and wife of Khalil Raza. Her case is that she is also a daughter of Khalil Raza, which is denied by the respondent No. 1 ; and it is contended on her behalf that since she was not impleaded as a party to the eviction proceeding started by the respondent, her right in the tenancy which is an independent right, cannot be put to an end by permitting the decree obtained to be executed. She alleges collusion between them and the decree holder.3. The landlord-decree holder has denied the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi641
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) (ORAL).-THIS is a Revision under Section 25B, sub-section (8), of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, arising from an eviction petition brought under Section 14(1)(e) which, was tried under the new procedure. The Additional Rent Controller rejected the application for leave on the ground that it was belated. He then held that as there was no permission to defend the eviction petition, the provisions of Section 25B(4) had to apply and hence, eviction had to follow. There are two objections to the procedure adopted by the Additional ]Rent Controller. Firstly, it is submitted that the application for leave to defend was belated because the tenant was ill and hence, the application could not be filed within 15 days. It is submitted that the period could be extended. Regarding the other point, it is submitted that even if Section 25B(4) is applicable, still, the eviction order should not have been passed. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the fact that the sale-deed wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2009Delhi1; 2008(106)DRJ365
Hima Kohli, J.1. By this order the Court proposes to dispose of an application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, whereunder the defendant has sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff cannot file any proceedings seeking to hold the suit property after expiry of the lease period i.e. after 31.12.2006 and that as the lease agreement is an unregistered document, and is hit by the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short `the Stamp Act'), the suit is barred by law.2. A brief reference to the facts of the case is necessary before dealing with the present application. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant praying inter alia for the following reliefs:(a) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men or agents, and all other persons acting on its behalf from preventing and/ or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment and possession of the suit schedule property situated at Plo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed an order dated 26th March, 2008 passed by learned ADJ dismissing an application filed by the petitioners under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree of possession of the premises in question in favour of the petitioner.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner had let out a premises bearing number M-15, Green Park, New Delhi to the respondent by way of a lease deed dated 25th January, 1999 for a period of two years with effect from 1st February 1999. The monthly rent reserved was Rs. 30,000/-.3. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of possession of the premises, permanent injunction and recovery of mesne profits alleging therein, apart from other things, that the lease expired on 31st January, 2001 by efflux of time but the premises in question was not vacated. The defendant (respondent herein) was als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No 1. Both these writ petitions involve common questions and are accordingly being disposed of together by this judgment. The Petitioners were licencees of shops at the Inter-state Bus Terminal (ISBT) at Kashmere Gate. The challenge in the present petitions is to the amount of licence fee being charged from the Petitioners on the ground that it is exorbitant and arbitrary. Also, challenge is to the omission of the Respondents in allotting alternative shops to those shopkeepers at the ISBT who were dislocated on account of the project of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).2. The case of the Petitioners is that in 1999 they were asked to hand over the vacant possession of the shops for the DMRC project with the assurance that they would be allotted shops at Dhaba Block and Departure Block.3. The Petitioner in Wri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. The plaintiff-respondent brought Eviction Suit No.10 of 2008 against the defendant-petitioner under section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as „the B.B.C. Act‟) on the ground of default in payment of rent. 2. The petitioner took on rent suit premises situated on second floor of building standing on Plot No.160, Holding No.7938, Circle 249, Ward No.34, in Mohalla- New Punaichak, Boring Canal Road, Patna. The defendant-petitioner alleged that during the pendency of the civil suit, the respondent (plaintiff) disconnected the electric supply. The defedant/petitioner filed an application on 4.5.2011 before the trial court with a prayer to restore electric connection, under section 10 of the B.B.C. Act. 3. On the other hand, the plaintiff-respondent raised issue of maintainability and jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain an application for restoration of amenities snapped or withheld by landlord in its object...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA1602013 Date of decision:10. h November, 2014 % INDER MOHAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants Through Mr. Tarun Bedi, Adv. versus SUBE SINGH Through ..... Respondent Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr.Manish, Advs. Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. as amicus curiae CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT1 The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 15th April, 2013 whereby their appeal against the decree for possession passed by the learned Civil Judge has been dismissed by the First Appellate Court. For the sake of convenience, the appellants have been referred to as the defendants and the respondent as the plaintiff as per their ranks before the Trial Court. Factual Matrix 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of possession and rent/mesne profits in respect of property bearing No.3347, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi against the defendants. The plaintiff prayed for decree of possession of the plot of land underneath property No.3347, Ranjit Nagar, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC. Revision No.504/2015 & CM APPL.20171/2015 Reserved on:27. h November, 2015 Pronounced on:21. t December, 2015 SAROJ BALA SAPRA & ORS. ... Petitioners Through: Mr. R. S.Sharma, Advocate. Versus AMAR PREET SINGH CHADHA & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in an Eviction Petition No.E- 1titled Amar Preet Singh Chadha & Anr. v. Smt. Saroj Bala Sapra & Ors. by virtue of which the leave to defend application of the petitioners-tenants has been rejected and an order of eviction was passed.2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the respondents- landlords are claiming themselves to be the owner of property RC. Rev. No.504/2015 Page 1 of 10 bearing No.18-B/3, D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:03. 03.2017 $~A-14 * % + CM(M) 289/2015 and CM No.5881/2015 BATUK PRASAD JAITLY ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Rajat Aneja and Mr.Chandrika Gupta, Advocates. versus RAJESH CHUGH & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Harpreet Singh, Mr.Rajesh Gupta and Mr.Pranjal Saran, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the order dated 20.01.2015 by which an eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord was dismissed.2. The petitioner filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) seeking eviction of the tenant/respondent on the ground of bona fide requirement. The eviction was sought regarding property No.V/884, Nai Sarak Road, Main Road, Delhi. It was averred by the petitioner that the petitioner is running a saree business ...
Tag this Judgment!