Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-30-1967
Reported in : AIR1967SC1222; [1967(14)FLR362]; (1967)IILLJ18SC; [1967]2SCR520
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against an award dated December 21, 1963 in Industrial Dispute No. 28 of 1963 of the Industrial. Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad on special leave granted by this Court. 2. The dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal related to the question of payment of bonus for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62 demanded by the workers of Azam Jahi Mills, Warangal. The Tribunal found that there was an available surplus for the first year but none for the second. It directed payment of bonus of one week's wages to all the workmen over and above the two weeks bonus which the employers had agreed to pay irrespective of any profits made by the company. In appeal before us the appellants contend that as there was no available surplus, if properly quantified, the question of payment of bonus in addition to that for the two weeks already agreed upon, does not arise. It is to be noted that the parties had entered into a settlement on February 22, 1960 which was to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-11-1967
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT590
Hardyal Hardy, J. (1) This second appeal has been filed by a tenant whose eviction has been ordered from a small loom described as a servant quarter and an open court-yard in a (2) The respondents had purchased bungalow No. 49 on Hanuman Road, New Delhi in 1958. At the time of purchase ey gto vacant possession of the entire bungalow except a small room described as a servant quarter and an open Court-yard which was in occupation of the appellant who claimed to have been in possession of the said portion of the property for the last 30 to 35 years, as according to him his father was an employee of the previous owner. The respondents who were Joint owners of the said bungalow with their father (since deceased) started living in the bungalow immediately after it was purchased by them. On the evidence that has been accepted by buth the Courts below, the respondents' family consisted of 18 or 19 members. Although the bungalow appears to be a fairly commodious one, the respondents sought evi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-13-1967
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT61
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This revision is directed against the older of the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge dated 13th March 1963 allowing the appeal and revers sing the order of a learned Subordinate Judg 1st Class dated 31st August 1961 whereby the plaintiff's suit. for recovery of Rs. l,080.00 and for ejectment against the defendant was decreed.(2) The suit in the trial Court had been instituted by Smt. Mohan Devi, wife of Shri Gopi Chand, forma pauperis on the allegations that M/s. Arora Provision Stores of Delhi was a tenant under her with regard to a khokha situated at Phatak Mishri Khan, Daryaganj. Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs.30.00 and that no rent had been paid from 1st February, 1951 to 31st January, 1954. On the pleadings, the following three principal issues were settled:-- 1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether any valid ntoice of demand was served upon the defeneant 3 Whether the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-01-1967
Reported in : AIR1967SC1360; [1967]3SCR59
Bhargava, J. 1. A suit for ejectment on the ground of failing to pay arrears of rent was instituted against the appellant, Bant Singh Gill, by the respondents under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (No. 38 of 1952) - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952', on the 27th February, 1958. On 9th February, 1959, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (No. 59 of 1958) - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1958', came into force and became applicable to the premises which were the subject-matter of he pending suit. On 13th March, 1961, the appellant, relying on the provisions of s. 50(2) of the Act of 1958, filed an application before the trial Court requesting it to hold that the suit had abated on the ground that the suit related to premises the construction of which had been completed after the 1st day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955. The trial Court, after taking into account the evidence, recorded a finding that the appellant had failed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-17-1967
Reported in : ILR1968Delhi309
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This is a second appeal from order, presented under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter called the Act) from the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated 5/12/1967 dismissing the appellant's appeal from the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 4/9/1967 rejecting the application of Suraj Parkash for setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction made on 27/5/1966.(2) It appears that in the proceedings for eviction, 27/5/1966 was fixed for the remaining evidence of the landlord and 2/6/1966 for the evidence of the tenant. On 27/5/1966, neither the tenant nor his counsel appeared at the hearing, with the result that on that very day, an ex-parte order of eviction was made against him. On an application for setting aside the ex-parte order having been made, buth the Courts below, on a consideration of the evidence, have come to the concurrent conclusion that the tenant had nto shown any sufficient cause for his absence on 27/5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-26-1967
Reported in : (1968)2MLJ77
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. In this writ petition, the necessity has arisen to interpret the provisions of Section 3 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, in regard to a part of it, introduced for the first time in 1960, and for whose interpretation there is no clear authority. The circumstances have arisen in the following way.2. The petitioner is a trust, and premises No. 12, Muthucattan Street, Periamet, Madras, belongs to the trust. The last tenant of the premises was one Gaughan, who vacated it on 12th August, 1963. Section 3 CO (a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Madras Act XVIII of 1960) hereinafter called the Act, makes it obligatory that every landlord shall, within 7 days after the building becomes vacant, by the termination of tenancy, give notice of the vacancy in writing to the officer authorised in that behalf by the Government, which, in this case, is the Accommodation Controller, the respondent herein. Admittedly, the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-26-1967
Reported in : AIR1968MP1
Dixit, C.J. 1. This revision petition has come up before us for hearing and disposal on a reference made by one of us because of conflicting views expressed by this Court in some decisions on the question whether the provisions of Section 13(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with regard to striking out of the defenceare mandatory or whether they give discretion to the Court in the matter of strik-ing out of the defence. 2. The petitioner-tenant's defence was struck out by the Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, on his failure to deposit the arrears of rent within the specified time as required by Section 13 of the Act. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the provisions of Section 13(6) of the Act are not mandatory and even when a tenant has failed to deposit or pay any amount as required by Section 13, the Court has discretion to decide whether his defence against eviction should be struck out, and that the learned C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-20-1967
Reported in : AIR1968SC133; [1967]3SCR747
Mitter, J. 1. These are seven appeals, by special leave, from a judgment and order of the Punjab High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal from a judgment and order of a single Judge dated April 7, 1966. 2. The facts in all these appeals bear a close resemblance and these cases were dealt with by a common judgment of the High Court. The facts in Appeal No. 486 of 1967 i.e. Pyare Lal's case, as laid in his petition, may be stated by way of specimen. By his petition dated October 12, 1965 Pyare Lal moved the Punjab High Court for the issue of a writ or direction restraining the New Delhi Municipal Committee from interfering with his right to carry on his trade at the site referred to in paragraph 1 of his petition, or, at any rate, without allotting an alternative site to him. He was a seller of potato chops and squatted at a site beside the service lane at the back of a shop off Janpath, New Delhi. There were other squatters who occupied sites in the same service lane. Although in the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-02-1967
Reported in : (1969)1MLJ281
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This group of writ petitions arises from orders of the Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, exercising powers under the Foreign Exchange-Regulation Act (VII of 1947), and the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules,, 1957, formulated by the Central Government under Section 27 of the Act. In all these cases, we propose to deal, in these judgments, with certain general grounds and issues that have been elaborately argued before us, the individual cases will then have to be taken up and dealt with, in the light of our judgments. The main reason for this procedure, which has commended itself to us as the course best adapted to the ends of justice in these cases, is that there are also special issues of fact relevant to individual instances, that would require separate treatment. For instance, in one case at least, the learned Advocate-General, appearing for the Government of India, has been fair enough to concede that the very basis of the figures on which the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-08-1967
Reported in : AIR1967SC1244; [1967]3SCR134
Subbarao, C.J.1. The writ petition and the two appeals are connected and they arise out of a dispute under the Evacuee interest (Separation) Act, 1951, (Act No. 64 of 1951) in regard to a partnership firm carrying on business in the name and style of Messrs. Hajee Esmail Noor Mohammad & Co. Its principal place of business is Calcutta and it has branches at Kanpur and Bombay. In 1947 a partnership deed was executed in respect of the said business. Though the business continued to be carried on under the said name, from time to time, having regard to the exigencies, new partnership deeds were executed. In the year 1948, Abdul Latif Hajee Esmail, one of the partners of the firm, went to Pakistan. On May 1, 1949, it appears that the said Abdul Latif Hajee Esmail sent from Pakistan a letter addressed to the partnership firm at Calcutta indicating is intention to retire from the partnership. On June 24, 1949, The United Provinces Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (U. P. Ordi...
Tag this Judgment!