Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-22-1969
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi210
..... . (7) in the case of central bank of india limited v. gokal chand a bench while dealing with the question of appeal to the tribunal.. under section 38 of the act. made the following observations :- '.. . . the best guide for interpreting section 38 of the delhi rent control act. 1958, is provided by the decision of the supreme court in shankar lal aggurwula's case and every order made by the rent controller either under the express provisions of the act or under the provisions of the code of civil procedure incorporated into it by virtue of section 37(2) would be appealable provided such an order finally decides a dispute between the parties or deprives a party of a substantial and important right ..... a judge of a court of small causes. (6) it may be noted that under the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 (no. xxxviii of 1952), which previously applied to the union territory of delhi, there was no right of second appeal to the high court but section 35 specifically conferred revisional powers on the high court. section 57 of the act repealed the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, in so far as it was applicable to the union territory of delhi. under section 39 of the act, a second appeal lies to the high court from an order made by the tribunal. section 37 of act no. xxxviii of 1952, had as well provided for the procedure of a court of small causes to be followed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-21-1969
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi376
S.N. Andley, J.(1) Shop No. 3865/4, Khirki Taffazul Hussain, Urdu Bazar, Delhi was constructed by the appellant in June 1957. On October 1, 1957, it was let to the respondent at a rent of Rs. 30.00 per month. Upon the application of the respondent under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the '1952 Act'), the Rent Court by its order dated November 2!, I960 fixed the standard rent of the shop at Rs. 11.46 Paise per month with effect from March 22, 1958. By the time the order fixing the standard rent was passed, the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the '1958 Act') had come into force. By notice dated December 29, 1960 the appellant called upon the respondent to pay the arrears of rent for the months of November and December 1960 failing which an application for eviction of the respondent was threatened to be filed The arrears of rent were demanded at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month. The respondent replied to the notice on January ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-04-1969
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT412
(1) This second appeal from order under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 8-5-1968 allowing Smt. Gulab Devi's appeal from the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 13-12-1966 dismissing her ejectment applications.(2) Two ejectment applications had been filed by Smt. Gulab Devi against Smt. D. P. Sinha and her children as legal representatives of the deceased tenant Shri D. P. Sinha and against Shri Ram Lal. The plea in ejectment application No. 1018 of 1964 was based on the averments that the premises had been sublet, assigned or that the premises were otherwise parted with to another person without obtaining the consent of the owner in writing. The premises were alleged to have been let out for residential purposes and required bonafide by the petitioner-landlady who was the owner and also as residence for herself and for other members of her family upon whom she depended. Her son Arjan Saxena, acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-27-1969
Reported in : AIR1969SC1165; (1969)1SCC724; [1969]3SCR855
1. This is an appeal by a tenant who had rented a shop No. 2687 in Kinari Bazar, Delhi from the respondent on Rs. 13.50 P per month. In those premises he was selling Usha sewing machines and fans. It appears that the level of the shop was too high from the road and his clients were troubled in going to his shop and so he lowered the level and thereby altered the premises to suit his convenience. The landlord thereupon filed a suit against him for his eviction Under Section 13(1)(k) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The suit was filed on November 13, 1957. The trial court ordered on February 19, 1959 ejectment and payment of Rs. 145/- as arrears of rent. An appeal against the order of the trial court was dismissed by the appellate authority on November 16, 1959. A revision application was then filed by the tenant on March 25, 1960. During the course of that revision he invoked the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 which had come into force on February 9, 1959 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-30-1969
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi892
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The common questions arising for decision in both these Writ Petitions are:- (1) whether a finding under section 14(1)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act of 1958) (corresponding to section 13(1)(g) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952) that the premises are unfit for human habitation and have to be demolished for reconstruction acts as rest indicate in a subsequent proceeding before the competent authority acting under section 19(4)(b) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, (hereinafter called the Act of 1956) and (2) if so, does this finding preclude the competent authority from acting under section 19(4)(a) of the Act of 1956. (2) In Civil Writ 708 of 1969, the landlord (Respondent No. 2) obtained an order of eviction against the tenant (petitioner) under section 14(1)(g) of the Act of 1958 on the ground that the landlord required the premises bona fide for the purpose of rebuilding the same and such wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-1969
Reported in : AIR1970Delhi26; 6(1970)DLT43
ORDER1. S.A. O. 435 of 1968 was dismissed in default on 2-1-1969. Neither party was represented in this Court on that day. The appellant has applied for setting aside the dismissal in default and for restoring the appeal to its original number and for its hearing on the merits. This application has been presented under Order 41, Rule 19, read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure. The averments made in this application are as under:-'1. That the above-mentioned appeal was fixed for hearing in the Court of the Hon'ble Chid Justice on 2-1-1969. It was No. 10 in the list. This appeal was on the cause list since 5th December 1968. 2. That the appellant-petitioner had been attending the Court diligently throughout. Even on 2-1-1969, he attended the Court. At 12 A.M., the petitioner enquired from the Reader attached to the Hon'ble Chief Justice as to whether there was any possibility of his case being taken up and he was told that there were very many big cases above him and there was ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-07-1969
Reported in : 1969(2)LC280(SC)
Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court, Delhi, accepting the revision under Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (XXXVIII of 1952) here with referred to as the Act, filed by Janendra Kumar Jain, respondent before us, hereinafter called defendant No. 8. By this judgment the High Court set aside the concur rent findings of fact given by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, and the learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi, that the All India Jain Digamber Parishad hereinafter referred to as the Parishad had sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises, Rishi Bhawan, let out to it in May 1944 by Maharaj Krishan, appellant before us & hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff. 2. The main complaint of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court was not right in holding that the courts below had misread the evidence in the case, and it had exceeded its powers u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-08-1969
Reported in : AIR1970Mad291
Ganesan, J. 1. The landlord Is the revision petitioner herein and he is aggrieved that the Subordinate Judge of Madurai had by his judgment in A. S. 221 of 1967 reversed the judgment of the District Munsif of Melur in O. S. 222 of 1966 and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 835-30 proved to have been spent by the respondent tenant.2. The respondent Is running a tea shop in the eastern and northern portion of a building at a monthly rent of Rs. 40, The flooring of the respondent's portion was made of mud and the walls also similarly were made of mud, and the premises have a common thatched roof with the other two portions of the building. As the petitioner landlord refused to renovate the roof which was leaking in the rains and to repair the mud floor and to put walls in the place of the mud walls which had fallen in spite of his requests and a notice, the respondent renewed the entire thatched roof which was common to his premises as well as the other portions of the building, demolishe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-16-1969
Reported in : (1969)10GLR857
N.G. Shelat, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 20 of 1963 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) at Kalawad for recovering possession of the suit shop together with mesne profits and costs of the suit against the appellant-original defendant inter alia alleging that he had taken the suit shop under a rent-note dated 20th October 1960 on a monthly rent of Rs. 33/- and that he had agreed to hand over possession thereof when he required the same for selling or mortgaging or at any time when he required for his own purposes by giving him one month's notice. The plaintiff required the said shop for raising a loan of Rs. 10, 000/- by creating a mortgage with possession thereon and that for that purpose be served him a notice dated 8th January 1963 terminating his tenancy and demanding possession of the suit shop from Maha Vad 30 of S.Y. 2019. Since the defendant failed to comply therewith he filed the suit against the defendant.2. The defendant resisted the suit by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-13-1969
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT539
S.K. Kapur, J.(1) The question in this appeal turns mainly on the interpretation of section 12 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant filed a petition for the fixation of standard rent of the premises in question. The premises were let out to the tenant on 2nd March, 1963, and the petition was filed on 19th July, 1966, that is, after the expiry of more than two years from the date of letting. The landlord objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that it had been beyond the time prescribed by section 12 of the said Act. The tenant then made an application for condensation of delay under the proviso to section 12. Two grounds were set up in the said application- (1) The tenant met with an accident on 31-8-1964 and he was advised complete physical and mental rest for two years : and (2) he was under a bona fide impression that application for the fixation of standard rent could be filed within two years after the completion of five years from the date of the ...
Tag this Judgment!