Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR405; 1999(1)BomCR643; (1999)1BOMLR687; [1999(81)FLR767]; (1999)IILLJ109Bom; 1999(1)MhLj489
ORDERB. N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Award of the 2nd respondent. First Labour Court, Mumbai, dated 16th April, 1996, made in Reference (IDA) No. 439 of 1986.Facts:2. The petitioner is a foreign Airline Company incorporated under the laws of Saudi Arabia and owned by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is engaged in the transportation of passengers, cargo and mail by air and has offices at various places all over the world including one at Mumbai. The 1st respondent is an ex-employee of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the Presiding Officer of the First Labour Court, Mumbai, exercising adjudicatory jurisdiction under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')3. The 1st respondent, Mrs. Shehnaz Mudbhatkal, joined the service of the petitioner on 16th November, 1978, as Secretary to the Station Manager. Prior to joining the petitioner's service, she was wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1974P& H339
Man Mohan Singh Gujral, J.1. Lalit Behari Petitioner applied for the eviction of the respondent, Sant Lal, from a shop situated in Rori Bazar, Sirsa, mainly on the ground that the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that he had been directed by the Municipal Committee to demolish the same. The tenant resisted the application and pleaded that the building was fit for habitation and that the landlord had managed to get a notice issued by the Municipal Committee in collusion with the President who was related to him with the only object of getting the tenant evicted. In view of this, the parties went to trial mainly on the following issue:-'Whether building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation?'Relying on the rule laid down in Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath, 1963-65 Pun LR 528, Chuhar Mal v. Balak Ram, 1964-66 Pun LR 503 and Raj Kumari v. Shadi Lal, 1969-71 Pun LR 245, the learned Rent controller held that this ground was not available to the landlord as he had not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)137; AIR1998Delhi308; 74(1998)DLT842; ILR1998Delhi367
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. The basic facts which are necessary to appreciate the controversy in this appeal are that the respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of possession of a portion of premises bearing bungalow No. 2, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi let out to the defendant/appellant in the present appeal vide a duly registered lease deed dated 16th September, 1975, This lease deed was for a period of one year and was extended by another year in September 1976. It is not necessary to give details of the tenancy premises because there is no controversy between the parties on this aspect. With effect from 21st October, 1978, the rent of the devised premises was enhanced from Rs. 2500/- per month to Rs. 3500/- per month. There is no dispute that the month of tenancy is now the English calendar month i.e. from the first day of the month to the last day of the month as per the English calendar.2. By way of amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 6A was introduced which g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 12(1976)DLT305; 1976RLR539
B.C. Misra, J.(1) The material facts in the appeal are that the respondents are tenant in respect of a shop in Connaught Place on a rent of Rs. 90.53 per month. On 17th November, 1963 the appellant landlord served a notice on the respondents requiring them to pay arrears of rent for the period from September, 1962 to October, 1963. It is the admitted case of the parties that the said notice had not been complied with within the period of two months as required by clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 therein referred to as the Act nor has the same been paid even by now.(2) On 8th April, 1969 the appellant landlord filed the petition for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and unlawful subletting, the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. Since the eviction has been sought on the ground mentioned in clause (a) the controller was required by section 15 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)84BOMLR67
Bhonsale, J.1. The petitioners who are respectively an education society, local managing committee and the college run by petitioner No. 1 Society, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the resolutions passed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Executive Council, Nagpur University, Nagpur dated May 23, 1977 and March 11, 1978 recommending setting aside of order of dismissal of respondent No. 4 and asking petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 to reinstate respondent No. 4 in the service of the petitioners and also refusing to withdraw the above mentioned recommendation at the instance of petitioner No. 3 i.e. Hislop College, Nagpur.2. Petitioner No. 1 - Hislop Education Society Nagpur, runs Hislop College in Nagpur - an educational institution of some repute. Petitioner No. 2 is the local managing committee of the Hislop College. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the Nagpur University, its executive council and the grievance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1992Raj75; 1991(2)WLN237
ORDERS.N. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a revsion petition against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Hindaun City, rejecting the application of the petitioner-applicant filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.2. The plaintiff non petitioner No. 1 filed a suit on 31-7-1984 for eviction against the defendant non petitioner No. 2 on several grounds including sub-letting the disputed shop to the petitioner. In para 5 of the plaint, it has been stated as under: --^^mDr nqdku tksM+krHkh ls izfroknh us fcyk btktr oknh] fdlh eqds'k y?kq m|kksx fg.Mksu izksikbZVjlrh'k pUn tSu dks lcySV dj fn;k gS**3. The suit was contested by the defendant and in reply of para 4 of the plaint, it has been submitted as under:--^^izfroknh fnukad 31&3&81rd dk fdjk;k oknh dks ;Fkk le; vnk dj pqdk gS A blds ckn fnukad 1&4&81ls oknh us mDr tksM+k nqdku eqrnkfo'k esllZ eqds'k y?kq m|ksx fg.MksuizksizkbZVj lrh'k pUn iq= uRFkh yky tkfr tSu fuoklh fg.Mksu dks 200@&:i;kekgokj fdjk;s ij ns nh rFkk oknh fnukad 1&4&81 ls mDr eqds'k y?...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1953All287
ORDERMukerji, J. 1. This is an application in revision by a defendant who had been sued under Section 5 (4), Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The plaintiff in the suit was the tenant. He sued the landlord on the ground that the rent of Rs. 75, to which he had agreed, was much above the reasonable rent for the premises and consequently he claimed that the rent should be fixed in accordance with the 'reasonable rent' payable in respect of the premises in suit. The premises of which the plaintiff was the tenant were not substantial buildings in any sense. They were more or less tin sheds having small accommodation but these premises were situated in a very busy locality commercially and consequently they were in great demand and apparently landlords were able to get very high rents for them. 2. I may also note that the landlord himself also filed a suit against the tenant, namely Shri Diwan Chand (plaintiff in suit no. 754 of 1949) for arrears of rent at the rate of Its. 75 per mensem. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi63; 1974RLR233
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) This second appeal is directed against the order dated 27th January, 1968, passed by Shri M. L. Jain, Rent Control Tribunal whereby he upheld the findings and judgment dated 12th October, 1966, of Shri P. K. Bahri, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissing the petition of the appellants (herein to be called 'the society') for seeking possession of the premises in occupation of the respondents.(2) Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that M/s. Ranjit Singh and Sons were stated to be tenants through Ranjit Singh under the appellants in respect of suit premises, bearing nos. 552 to 554 Esplande Road, Delhi.(3) S/SHRI Ram Kumar, Babu Ram, Ishar Dass, Parkash Chand, Khusi Ram, Om Parkash and Hari Chand all sons of Ranjit Singh were imp leaded as owners of the firm as Ranjit Singh was reported to have died when the, petition under section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein to be called 'the Act') was filed.(4) During the pendency of the case Ram Kuma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1969P& H110
R.S. Narula, J.1. The circumstances in which the following three question of law have been referred to this Full Bench at the instance of P. C. Pandit, J. are given in substantial details in the order of reference passed by the learned Single judge, on July 23, 1968, and need not be recapitulated any detail:-(i) whether an ejectment application under section 13 of the East Punjab urban Rent restriction Act (3 of 1949) can be field without the prior issue of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882; (ii) Whether the objection regarding non-issue of a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of property Act can be waived by the tenant; and (iii) whether objection as to the validity of the notice can be waived by a tenant in a case in which a defective notice has been issued. 2. The admitted facts giving rise to this reference are that the respondent (hereinafter called the landlord) gave one week's notice of ejectment to the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(5)SC49; 1994(3)SCALE712; (1994)5SCC465; [1994]Supp2SCR495
S. Mohan, J.1. The facts leading to the civil appeal are as under:2. One Ahmedi Begum was the owner of 'Dharampur Lodge' situated near clock Tower, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. She leased out the entire property to S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar. The lease was for a period of 5 years evidenced by registered lease deed dated 12th April, 1948. On expiry of the said lease another lease dated 3rd April, 1953 was executed for a further period of 5 years which was also duly registered.3. Both these lease deeds empowered the lessee S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar to sub let the whole or a part of the demise property. S Sardul Singh Caveeshar sub-let various portions of the property to several subtenants. One such sub-letting was in favour of the appellant, Manphul Singh Sharma in April, 1948 and another portion to Yog Raj Goswami in August 1956.4. On 1st of September, 1956 the tenant S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar by a registered lease deed sub-let the entirety of the property in favour of Surinder Kumar Sharma. That...
Tag this Judgment!