Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-30-1961
Reported in : AIR1962P& H369
(1) Shri Sarup Singh and his sons brought a petition for ejectment of Messrs. Allen Berry Company(Calcutta) Private Limited, and Messrs. South Asia Industries Private Limited, from premises No. 5 Block M, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. While the case was pending, Messrs Allen Berry Company (Calcutta) Private Limited went into liquidation and its name was therefore, struck off the record. Messrs South Asia Industries Private Limited then made tow applications-one on the 10th of November, 1960, and the other on the 19th of November, 1960, alleging that the name of the tenant having been struck off the record the application of the landlords for ejectment of Messrs South Asia Industries Private Limited, who were merely sub-tenants, could not proceed as the case had ceased to be one between a landlord and a tenant. These applications were rejected by the Rent Controller. An appeal against this order was filed by Messrs South Asia Industries Private Limited but the same was dismissed on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-13-1961
Reported in : (1962)1MLJ441
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a premises in Madras, and the respondent is his tenant in that premises. The respondent filed an application before the Rent Controller under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1949 seeking to have fair rent fixed for the said premises. After an enquiry into the matter the Controller fixed the fair rent in a certain amount. The petitioner aggrieved by the said decision filed an appeal, H.R.A. No. 272 of 1959 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The respondent was duly served with notice of appeal and the appeal was posted for final hearing on 3rd November, 1959. The respondent failed to appear on that date before the appellate authority with the consequence that he was declared ex parte, and the appeal was allowed. On the next day, 4th November, 1959 the respondent filed an application, M.P. No. 2321 of 1959, before the appellate authority, the Court of Small Causes at Madras, for setting aside the exparte ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-02-1961
Reported in : AIR1962SC646; [1962]2SCR947
..... delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 (act no. xxxviii of 1952), which by s. 46 repealed the control act, 1947. that section, however, contains a saving clause which is as follows : '46. repeals and savings. - (1) x x x (2) notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings pending at the commencement of this act, whether before any court or the rent controller appointed under the fourth schedule to the said act, shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said act as if the said act had continued in force and this act ..... here note that so far as the standard rent fixed by the rent controller was concerned, the district judge himself noted that the learned advocate for the landlord was not able to find any fault with the assessment made by the rent controller. 47. civil appeal no. 171 of 1958. 48. we now come to civil appeal no. 171. the facts of this appeal are somewhat different. we have already stated that this appeal relates to two flats on the ground floor ..... so might be giving retrospective effect to the constitution. the high court then went on to consider the further contention urged before it that in the proceedings before the rent controller there was a violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as all recognised principles governing tribunals which exercise quasi-judicial powers or follow a procedure subserving the orderly administration of justice had been disregarded. on this point the learned judge, delivering the judgment of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-30-1961
Reported in : AIR1962P& H256
Mahajan, J.(1) This matter originally came up before me and in view of the importance of the question. I referred it to a Division Bench. The matter was then placed before a Division Bench consisting of Dua J. and myself. In view of certain decisions of this Court under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, the matter was then reference to a Full Bench and that is how the matter has been placed before us today.(2) The only question that requires determination depends on the true construction of Section 13(2) (i) of the Estate Punjab Urban Rent Registration Act (III of 1949)--hereinafter to be referred to as the Act--or in other words the question that requires determination is whether a tenant who is sought to be ejected because he is in arrears of rent can avoid ejectment by only tendering the arrears that are within the period of limitation or has he to tender all the arrears of rent whether they are within or outside the period of limitation?(3) The facts of the present case n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-21-1961
Reported in : AIR1961SC1731; [1962]2SCR169
Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras on a certificate under Arts. 132 and 133(1) of the Constitution, and raises for consideration the constitutionality of s. 13 of the Madras Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1949; and the legality of an order of the State Government passed thereunder. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are briefly as follows : The dispute relates to premises No. 1, Blackers Road, Mount Road, Madras - a property which was originally owned by one Sir Haji Ismail Sait. In or about the year 1914 one Venkayya obtained a lease of this property from Sir Haji Ismail Sait and constructed a cinema-theatre thereon which he ran under the name of 'the Gaiety Theatre'. Venkayya was adjudicated an insolvent and the Official Assignee of Madras in whom his estate, including the leasehold interest in the suit site vested, obtained a further lease of the property from the representatives of Sir Haji Ismail Sait who h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-18-1961
Reported in : AIR1962Ori24; 28(1962)CLT66
Narasimham, C.J.1. These two applications were heard together and are disposed of by one judgment. 2. The two petitioners are holders of leases of manganese ores in the district of Sundargarh in Orissa. The Administrator, Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund by his orders dated 24th and 25th May 1960 respectively levied cess on them under the provisions of the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 (Orissa Act 27 of 1952) hereinafter referred to as the impugned State Act) and called upon them to deposit the cess within a certain period. The two petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the impugned State Act and the levy of cess under its provision and have prayed for the issue of a appropriate direction under Article 226 of the Constitution cancelling the notice of demand issued to them.3. It is necessary to briefly narrate the variousstatutes dealing with the regulation and development of mines and minerals. In 1948 the DominionLegislature passed an Act entit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-21-1961
Reported in : AIR1961SC1602; [1962]2SCR125
Ayyangar, J.1. These three petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of s. 19 and particularly sub-s. 3, of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 (Central Act 96 of 1956), on the ground that it offends the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed to them by Arts. 14 and 19(1)(f). 2. To appreciate the grounds on which this contention is sought to be sustained it is necessary to set out briefly a few facts. We might however mention that though the constitutional objection, adverted to is common to all the three petitions, it is sufficient to refer to the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 67 of 1959 which is typical of the cases before us. 3. The petitioner - Jyoti Pershad - is the owner of a house in Delhi in which respondents 3 to 11 were tenants. Each of these nine individuals occupied a single room in this house. As the petitioner considered the house to be old and req...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-11-1961
Reported in : AIR1962SC219; [1962]3SCR515
Shah, J. 1. Sardar Gian Singh - hereinafter Called the appellant - was recruited in 1927 as a Naib Tehsildar in the Revenue department of the Province of Punjab. He was confirmed in that rank in 1939. In 1946, he was promoted to the rank of officiating Tehsildar and was posted as Tehsildar at Hansi in the district of Hissar on September 22, 1947, and since then he held the post of Tehsildar at diverse places. 2. On August 20, 1952, the appellant was served with a charge sheet by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab containing eleven heads of charges of misappropriation, misconduct, irregularities and dereliction of duties committed by him. The Deputy Commissioner. Hissar was appointed to hold a departmental enquiry into those charges. On August 28, 1953, the appellant was served with a notice to show cause why on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant submitted his explanation. The Financial Commissioner by order dated October...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-20-1961
Reported in : AIR1962Raj190
Modi J.1. This reference originally came before a learned single Judge and has in turn been made by him to a larger bench.2. The questions referred to this bench for answer are as follows:(1) Whether Section 2(i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. XVII of 1950) as amended by the Amending and Extending Act, 1957 (Act No. 34 of 1957) in so far as it applies to the Cantonment Area of Nasirabad and Section 2(2) of the said Act which brings into force at once Sections 1 to 4 and 27 to 31 of that Act and authorises the State of Rajasthan to extend the remaining provisions to such areas in that State and from such date as may from time to time be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette in so far as it affects the Cantonment area of Nasirabad is beyond the legislative competence of the Rajasthan State Legislature for the reason that the subject-matter covered by the said Rajastham Act is within the exclusive competence of the Union Parl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-19-1961
Reported in : AIR1963P& H163
1. This is a revision petition by the landlords Bal Kishan and others against the order of the District Judge, Sangrur, and Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (Act No. III of 1949) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), whereby the order of the Rent Controller, Sangrur, fixing on the petition of Gopi Chand etc. tenants the fair rent of the premises in suit at Rs. 343.75 nP. per annum, was confirmed.2. An application by the tenants was made under Section 4 of the Act. The land in suit was situated within the municipal limits of Sangrur. In the year 1952-53 the contractual rent was Rs. 900/- per annum. The tenants moved the Rent Controller, Sangrur, under the provisions of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2006 Bk. (Ordinance No. VIII of 2006 Bk.) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Ordinance) for fixation of fair rent. Under Section 4 of the Ordinance, the Controller while fixing the fair rent was r...
Tag this Judgment!