Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC855; [1992]74CompCas482(SC); JT1990(3)SC417; 1990(2)SCALE200; (1990)4SCC406; [1990]3SCR649
..... act and whether such a person can invoke the protection of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rent control act'). in short, the question is, whether the provisions of the public premises act would override the provisions of the rent control act in relation to premises which fall within the ambit of both the enactments.2. civil appeals ..... rent control act before the rent controller followed by appeal before the rent control tribunal and revision before the high court. after these proceedings have ended they would be followed by proceedings under the public premises act, before the estate officer and the appellate authority. in other words, persons in occupation of public premises would receive greater protection than tenants in premises owned by private persons. it could not be the intention of parliament to confer this dual benefit on persons in occupation of public premises.66. it has also been urged that in section 22 of the rent control act ..... the building; but does not include a room in a hotel or lodging house.38. section 3, which excludes the applicability of the act to certain premises, provide as under:nothing in this act shall apply:(a) to any premises belonging to the government; (b) to any ..... act, parliament devotes its entire consideration to a particular subject. when a general act is subsequently passed, it is logical to presume that parliament has not repealed or modified the former special act unless it appears that the special act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi202; ILR1972Delhi122
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) After the dis(2) The right of appeal is a substantive one and has to be given by some statute expressly or by necessary implication. We have to find out, thereforee, the particular provision of law which gives the Union of India the right of appeal. Section 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure enacts that 'in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law'. Provisions of the Letters Patent of the High Courts have been held to be such 'special law'. For instance, clause 36 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Bombay was held to be applicable in preferences to section 98 of the Code to govern an appeal from the original side of the High Court to a third Judge where two Judges had differed. (Bhahidas v. Pai Gulab 1921) 481. A. 1810. Under sub-section (1) of .section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 'where a single Judge of the High Court of Delhi exercises ordinary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1996Raj182
Arun Madan, J. 1. This civil second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C., 1908 has been preferred to this court against the judgment and decree, dated 7th March, 1995 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal on the ground of default preferred by the defendant-appellant while maintaining the decree for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises on the grounds of nuisance and sub-letting.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that a civil suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') from the suit shop situated in old sabji mandi behind Johari Bazar, Jaipur, was filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter, referred to as the 'respondent'). It was alleged in the suit that the suit shop was rented out to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month and that it was an old tenancy. The plaintiff filed the said suit for eviction of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1978Delhi107; 13(1977)DLT204; 1978RLR145
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (No. 9 of 1887) against the judgment and decree of Shri B. B. Gupta, Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, dated 4th Oct., 1972, in Suit No. 3343 of 1972.2. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein, Shri Mohd. Usman, for recovery of Rs. 561.75p. alleging that the petitioner herein, Shri Ganga Ram, was a statutory tenant under him on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-, and that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi assessed the rate able value of the house No. 369 at Rs. 1,720/- and imposed other charges like water tax, scavenging tax, fire tax, etc. amounting to Rs. 111.80p. It was also alleged in the plaint that the petitioner (tenant) had sublet the premises in his tenancy to three persons who were paying rent to him amounting to Rs. 78.25p. per month, that the said amount was taken into consideration by the Corporation in determining the rateable value of the premises, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1979Delhi139
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) It is the effect of the change in the definition of 'tenant' in section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the principal Act) brought about by the retrospective amendment made by section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (amending Act), which is to be considered in these appeals referred to the Full Bench.(2) The Questions (1) What is the meaning of 'tenant' in section 2(1) of the principal Act firstly under the old definition as it existed prior to 1st December, 1975 and secondly in the amended definition with effect from 1st December, 1975 (2) Does the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal and others v. Parashram and others, : AIR1976SC2229 , apply to the construction of the old definition of 'tenant' in preference to the majority decision in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi and others, : [1964]4SCR892 , followed in J. C. Chatterjee & others, v. Shri Sri Kishan Tandon and others, : [1973]1SCR850 Whether in the new defin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]116ITR440(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This reference arises out of the proceedings for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, the corresponding previous years having ended on 31st December, 1961, and 28th February, 1962, respectively. The income-tax assessments were completed under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on a total income of Rs. 58,47,380 and Rs. 31,13,458 on 22nd February, 1964, and 23rd March, 1964, for the two assessment years respectively. The assessee had discontinued its business in India on 28th February, 1962, and had filed a claim under Section 25(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, on 27th March, 1962. In the said claim, it was stated by the assessee as under :'With reference to our letter dated 12th March, 1962, and in accordance with the provisions of the above Section whereby no income-tax and super-tax shall be payable by us in respect of the income, profits or gains for the period between the end of the previous year and 28th February, 1962, by virtue of our business...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1979Delhi186; 15(1979)DLT198; 1979RLR127
Deshpandie, C.J.1. It is the effect of the change in the definition of 'tenant' in Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the principal Act) brought about by the retrospective amendment made by Section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (amending Act), which is to be considered in these appeals referred to the Full Bench.2. The Questions:(1) What is the meaning of 'tenant' in Section 2(1) of the principal Act firstly under the old definition as it existed prior to lst December, 1075 and secondly in the amended definition with effect from lst December, 1975. (2) Does the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal v. Parashram, : AIR1976SC2229 , apply to the construction of the old definition of 'tenant' in preference to the majority decision in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi, : [1964]4SCR892 , followed in J. C. Chatterjee v. Sri Kishan Tandon, : [1973]1SCR850 . (3) Whether in the new definition clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 2(1) have to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1985Delhi331; [1974]95ITR34(Delhi)
T.V. Tatacjhari, J.(1) This reference to the Full Bench has been made by Avadh Behari Rohatagi, J. under Rule 2 (as amended) of the Original Side Rules. 1967, in Suit No. 64 of 1969 instituted on the Original Side of this Court. The questions referred to by the learned Judge for the opinion of the Full Bench relate to the scope and effect of the provisions in sections 54 and 59B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and sections 137 and 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.(2) The facts which have occasioned the reference are briefly the following. The plaintiff, Trilok Chand Jain, instituted the suit referred to above for recovery of Rs. 1,39,722.86 from the defendants M/s. Dagi Ram Pindi Lall, its three partners Pindi I all, Bishamber Nath and Dagi Ram and Smt. Budh Wanti, wife of Pindi Lall. While evidence was being recorded in the Suit, the plaintiff obtained summons from the Court requiring the Income-tax Department to produce in Court the records relating to the income-tax of M[s. Dagi ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi45; 1974RLR39
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) In this second appeal the only question which arises for decision is as to whether under the provisions of section 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') MurariLal appellant can be deemed to have become a tenant holding directly under the landlords in respect of the premises in his occupation on the same term and conditions on which Ranjit Singh tenant would have held from the landlords, if the tenancy had continued. (2) The premises to which this case relates is a godown which is part of a building having Municipal No. 11/953, situate in Kucha Qabil Attar, Chandni Chowk, Ward No. 11, Delhi. It is not disputed that the godown belonged to Haji Abdul Jabbar and was let out by him on June 19. 1954 to Ranjit Singh at a rent of Rs. 85.00 per month. In July 1956 Ranjit Singh sub-let the godown to Murari Lal without the consent of the landlord. (3) In April 1963 Haji Abdul Jabbar filed an application, under clause (a) of the proviso t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.08.2007 of the additional rent control tribunal (arct) granting an order of eviction in favour of the respondent under section 14(1)(b) of delhi rent control act, 1958 (for short, drc act ) had approached this court by the present petition presenting it initially as a second appeal under section 39 of the drc act. the provision contained in section 39, however, having been repealed by section 17 cm(m) 292/2009 page 1 of 35 of delhi rent control (amendment) act, 1988 brought in force from 01.12.1988, upon objection being ..... 14(1)(b) had been established. the petition of the landlord was, thus, dismissed by the arc, by judgment dated 05.06.1997. cm(m) 292/2009 page 12 of 35 20. the landlord approached the arct by statutory appeal (rca4611997) under section 38 of drc act. the arct, by its judgment dated 29.08.2007, held that the arc had not appreciated the fine distinction of law, its conclusions suffering from material irregularities and calling for interference. it found, on re-appreciation of the evidence, that ..... and wash basin having been added to the portion in use of r-2 and also about r-3 having installed a telephone connection which he would keep locked . cm(m) 292/2009 page 26 of 35 38. during the cross-examination while conceding that r-2 had left the premises, referring in this context to some press announcements, he explained his knowledge about the user by the persons alleged to be sub-tenants on account of his .....
Tag this Judgment!