Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-1973
Reported in : 9(1973)DLT510
S.N. Andley, J. (1) In this second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the tenants are the appellants and the landlord is the respondent. On June 12, 1964, the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the appellants under the said Act on the ground of non-payment of rent, sub-letting and change of user. Admittedly, the contractual 'rent was Rs. 500 .00 per month. Since one of the grounds for eviction was non-payment of rent covered by clause (a) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the said Act, the Rent Controller, on September 16, 1964 passed an order as required by sub-section (1) of section 15 of the said Act, against the appellants to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3,700.00up to May 27, 1964 and then up to date rent at the rate of Rs. 300.00 which was fixed as the interim rent within one month from that date and future rent at the same rate month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month. It was not disputed that the arrears ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-09-1973
Reported in : AIR1973SC2352; [1973]88ITR439(SC); (1973)4SCC175
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal by certificate arises from the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family. In this case we are concerned with the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1950-51.2. The question for decision in this case is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the proceedings which were commenced by a notice under Section 34(1)(b) could have been converted into proceedings under Section 34(1)(a) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In Order to decide this question it is necessary to refer to the material facts. For the assessment year in question the assessee was assessed without any objection. Thereafter the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to him under Section 34 of the Act without mentioning therein whether he was taking action under Section 34(1)(a) or 34(1)(b). The assessee filed its objection to the noti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-01-1973
Reported in : 9(1973)DLT491; 1973RLR509
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) This revision has been referred for decision by a larger bench because of divergence of views expressed in the cases- Vas Dev v. Sohan Singh and others (1968) D.L.T. 492 and Inder Lal Sapra v. Brij Mohan (S.A.O. 300 of 1971) decided on May 24, 1972 on the question whether a judgment-debtor tenant.. during execution of the decree for eviction against him, on the ground of personal bona fide need of the landlord, can agitate the question that the need of the landlord had ceased to exist and, thereforee, the decree was inexecutable. (2) In a suit for eviction filed by the respondent (hereafter called 'the landlord') under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act. 1952 (hereafter called 'the 1952 Act') for eviction of the appellant (hereafter called 'the tenant') on the ground that the premises were required by him bona fide, the trial court on December 21, 1955 granted a decree for eviction in his favor on the basis of a compromise. According to the compromise, the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-29-1973
Reported in : 1973RLR627
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This is an appeal by the tenant against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 13.10.72 by which he set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 7-10-1969 and directed eviction of the appellant. (2) The respondent landlady on April 17, 1965 filed an application under clause (g) of Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that the premises in dispute were required bonafide by the landlady for the purpose of re-building and such re-building could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. It was also alleged that the proposed reconstruction would not radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let and that the premises in dispute were in a dilapidated condition and it was in the public interest that the premises be reconstructed. It was further alleged that the reconstruction was necessary to meet the requirement of the petitioner and her fam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-25-1973
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi667
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This review application which purports to be made under section 114 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code has really to be treated as one made under Order Xlvii rule I Civil Procedure Code. For, section 151 has no application to this case. A review under section 151 is made to avoid the abuse of the process of the court and to correct some palpable error which the court committed by mistake. (Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab Air 1963 Sc 1909), (2) The only ground on which the application could be considered under Order Xlvii rule 1 Civil Procedure Code is whether the order dated 1st September 1972 which is sought to be reviewed disclosed 'error apparent on the face of the record' on 1st September 1972 when it was passed. (3) The present petitioners had contended before me in S.A.O. 178 of 1972 (Nathu Khan and others v. Mohd lsmail) that the order of eviction passed by the Controller under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the legal repre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-1973
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 : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-29-1973
Reported in : AIR1974SC396; (1974)1SCC202; [1974]2SCR530; 1974(6)LC237(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J.1. This litigation, started in 1951, has lived long, although the main point on which the fate of the case rests is the construction of a contract between the Municipal Board, Bareilly (the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 1968) and the Thekedar under it of the Municipal market, one Habibullah (the father of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 1968). The present appellant is the legal representative of the defendant and has himself filed an appeal (C.A. No. 1728 of 1968) where the Board is the sole respondent. Instant or early justice seems impossible without radical re-orientation and systematic changes in the judicial process, as these two appeals, which have survived two decades, sadly illustrate.2. Now, a brief narration of the facts. Although the canvass has been spread out, the relevant dispute lies in a narrow compass, and can be resolved by a close look at the terms of Ex. '1' (substantially repeated in Ex. '4') and by applying settled rules which te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-13-1973
Reported in : AIR1973All596
..... case it was held that no letters patent appeal lay against the judgment of a single judge passed in an appeal under section 39 of the delhi rent control act. 1958 because the appropriate legislature had imposed a bar against any further appeal by making the judgment under section 39(1) 'final' under section 43 of the act. in my opinion, in respect of judgments passed by a single judge of the high court in exercise of jurisdiction and powers conferred by or under a particular statute, the legislature which enacted it or which is competent and empowered under the constitution to amend, alter or repeal the act in question, is the appropriate legislature under article 225 ..... in respect of the matters enumerated in the lists the competent legislature can confer jurisdiction and powers on the existing courts established by the competent legislature or it can create special courts or tribunals, or curtail or abolish the jurisdiction and powers of the existing courts. any legislation in respect of jurisdiction and powers under the three entries must relate to the matters detailed in the corresponding list.38. the next question for consideration, which is the main controversy between the parties, is what legislative field be reserved for the expression 'constitution and organization' so that the field of 'administration of justice' be not unreasonably .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-14-1973
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
Decided on : Sep-07-1973
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!