Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-05-1974
Reported in : AIR1974P& H339
Man Mohan Singh Gujral, J.1. Lalit Behari Petitioner applied for the eviction of the respondent, Sant Lal, from a shop situated in Rori Bazar, Sirsa, mainly on the ground that the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that he had been directed by the Municipal Committee to demolish the same. The tenant resisted the application and pleaded that the building was fit for habitation and that the landlord had managed to get a notice issued by the Municipal Committee in collusion with the President who was related to him with the only object of getting the tenant evicted. In view of this, the parties went to trial mainly on the following issue:-'Whether building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation?'Relying on the rule laid down in Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath, 1963-65 Pun LR 528, Chuhar Mal v. Balak Ram, 1964-66 Pun LR 503 and Raj Kumari v. Shadi Lal, 1969-71 Pun LR 245, the learned Rent controller held that this ground was not available to the landlord as he had not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-25-1974
Reported in : 1974WLN199
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff-landlords from the appellate judgment and decree by the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer who upheld the decree against the original tenant Ramjidas, and one sub-tenant Heeralal, but dismissed the suit against the heirs of Suryanand-another subtenant in respect of the ground-floor of the suit premises.2. It is undisputed that the premises in question were originally let out to Ramjidas who sublet the ground-floor (except one Baithak) on rent of Rs. 16/- to Suryanand In the suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiffs, not only the tenant Ramjidas but the alleged sub-tenants Heeralal and Suryanand were also impleaded on the ground that a part of the premises had been sublet to them without the consent of the land-lord. Two additional grounds ware relied upon for ejectment, viz. defaults in payment of rent and nuisance. All the defendants resisted the suit and after trial the learned Munsiff, Ajmer City (East) held that all the three grounds ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-23-1974
Reported in : AIR1975All154
ORDERK.N. Singh, J. 1. Messrs. Jagat Nath Wahal, Jeewan Nath Wahal and Mahabir Prasad Srivastava made applications before the State Transport Authority, Luck-now, for grant of stage carriage permits on Meerut-Delhi, an inter-State route. The State Transport Authority dismissed all the three applications mainly on the ground that the Meerut-Delhi was a notified route under the Motor Vehicles Act and as such no stage carriage permit could legally be granted to the said applicants. The order of the State Transport Authority was challenged in appeal by Jagannath Wahal, Jeewan Nath Wahal and Mahabir Prasad Srivastava before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal). By its order dated 27th February, 1973, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the three appeals and set aside the order of the State Transport Authority, it further directed the State Transport Authority to grant stage carriage permits to each of the three appellants. The Appellat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-21-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC994; (1974)2SCC70; [1974]3SCR152
..... passed by the rent control court under s. 10 of the madras building (lease and rent control) act, 1960. but by analogy, the ratio of that decision is an apposite guide for the present case. there the landlord brought an action under said rent act, for ..... impeached only by way of appeal etc. as provided in the act because the error was committed by the collector within the exercise of his jurisdiction. a court or any quasi-judicial tribunal acting within its jurisdiction ..... s. 47, c.p.c., pleading that the decree is void as being in contravention of s. 13 of the delhi statute. the high court held 'that the decree was a nullity, as the order was passed solely on the basis of ..... these appeals cannot on the strength of the purchase orders exclude those lands from the operation of s. 10-a(a) of the act. the legislature, charged with the constitutional mandate of art. 38 and art. 39 has passed the act and amended ..... years. the acts of 1950 and 1951, were repealed and replaced by act 10 of 1953 with which we are concerned. the preamble says that the act is a piece of legislation "to provide for the security of land tenure and other incidental matters". the act classifies ..... act, may select his permissible area and intimate the selection to the prescribed authority within the period specified in sec. 5-a and in such form and manner as may be prescribed. the requisite form was prescribed by punjab government notification no. 3223-lr-11-57/1624 published in the gazette extraordinary of march 22, 1958 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-24-1974
Reported in : ILR1975Delhi96
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi confirming that of the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 15(1) of the Act.(2) The premises in dispute were let out to the appellant by late Shrimati Tara H. K. Lal on a monthly rent of Rs. 900.00 . Subsequently on the death of the landlady the respondent herein, one of the heirs of the landlady, filed an application for the eviction of the appellant from the premises on the ground that the appellant had failed to pay rent legally recoverable from him notwithstanding the expiry of the period of two months from the service of notice of demand in that behalf. The application was resisted by the appellant inter alia, on the ground that the application was not maintainable in the absence of other heirs of the landlady; that no notice of demand had been served on the appellant; that after ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-07-1974
Reported in : AIR1975All13
Satish Chandra, J. 1. Theseseven appeals raise common question and can conveniently be decided by a common judgment.2. Building No. 51/10, Naugarha, in the city of Kanpur, was owned by respondents Nos. 3 to 5. The various appellants in these seven appeals were tenants of different portions of this building. On 21st January, 1965, respondents Nos. 3 to 5, the Landlords, applied under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to sue for the eviction of the tenants. After hearing the parties the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted the requisite permission. The revisions filed by the tenants before the Commissioner as well as before the State Government failed and were dismissed. On 9th February, 1971, the Landlords filed seven separate suits in the court of the City Munsif, Kanpur, for the ejectment of the appellants from the accommodations in their respective possession.3. Before the evidence was recorded in these suits the U. P. Civi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-18-1974
Reported in : AIR1975Kant47; ILR1975KAR313; 1975(1)KarLJ386
Malimath, J. 1. This second appeal has come a before us on a reference made by Justice Venkataswami by his order dated 22nd November, 1972, on the ground that there is some conflict between the decisions of this Court in the case reported in (1965) 1 Mys LJ 100 between Parvathi Bai v. Damodar Anant Hegde and the unreported decision in Ex. Second Appeal No. 100 of 1966 between Situ Hengsu v. B. Kamalabai decided on 14-4-1967 (Mys.) on the question of applicability of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 to pending proceedings.2. Respondents 1 to 6 instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 377 of 1964 in the Court of the Munsiff at Belgaum on the 25th of August, 1964 for possession of the suit house situate in Madhavpur and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 280, alleging that the appellant-defendant is a monthly tenant under them and that his tenancy has been duly terminated. The Ist Additional Munsiff, Belgaum made a decree for possession and arrears of rent of Rs. 217 with i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-15-1974
Reported in : 11(1975)DLT124
H. L. Anand, J.(1) By this secoud appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called ' the Act'), the appellant, an unsuccessful tenant, challenges anorder of the Rent Control Tribunal by which it has affirmed in appeal an order made by the Additional Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act on the ground that the premises in dispute were bona fide required by the respondent/landlady for her residence and that the respondent/ landlady had no other suitable accommodation available for the purpose. (2) The appellant has been in occupation of the premises in dispute being a portion of the ground floor of the property, consisting of two rooms, a verandah, kitchen, bath, court-yard and a common laterine. The landlady has been in occupation of a part of the first floor of the property and while it is not disputed that the premises in the occupation of the landlady on the first floor is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-29-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC1924; (1974)2SCC472; [1975]1SCR575
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Allahabad praying that the order passed by the State Government on October 20, 1967, allowing a revision filed by the respondent be quashed and possession of the premises in question be given to them under Section 7-A of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The original owner of the premises was one Ram Swaroop Gupta. He leased the premises to M/s. Pioneer Exhibitors and Distributors Limited. They used the premises for exhibiting cinema. That lease terminated by efflux of time on June 30, 1952. Gupta, thereafter, leased the premises by a deed dated October 13, 1952 for a period of 10 years to Ram Agyan Singh, respondent No. 2. But there was no order allotting the accommodation to him under Section 7(2) of the Act. Respondent No. 2 also used the premises for exhibiting cinematograph films. Disputes having arisen between ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-05-1974
Reported in : [1977]108ITR620(AP)
Obul Reddi, C.J.1. The short question that arises in this writ appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 30(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 30(a)(ii) is in these terms :'In respect of rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance for premises, used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed- (a) where the premises are occupied by the assessee--...... (ii) otherwise than as a tenant, the amount paid by him on account of current repairs to the premises.' 2. The question before us is whether the repairs in respect of which the assessee claimed deduction are 'current repairs' to the premises. The learned single judge was not prepared to hold that the repairs in question were 'current repairs' to the premises. In that view, he dismissed the writ petition.3. The facts necessary for determination of the question involved are these:The appellant is a public limited company. It submitted return for the assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!