Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-20-1977
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi139; 1977RLR549
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This appeal has been placed before the Division Bench in view of order of reference to a larger bench dated 6th October, 1972, passed by T. P. S. Chawla, J., and raises a question as to the procedure the Controller ought to follow before passing order under section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) The respondent-landlord instituted proceedings for eviction under the Act against the appellant, the tenant. One of the grounds on which eviction was sought was that the tenant was in arrears in the payment of the rent. The case of the respondent-landlord in the eviction application was that the construction of the premises in question was completed on 13-3-1964 and the appellant is the first tenant in the said premises and that the premises were let out on 27-4-1964. It was further averred that the tenant was irregular in paying the rent and he has not paid the rent regularly since 26-11-1967. After 26-11-1967, the appellant,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-25-1977
Reported in : 1978RLR88
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This is an appeal instituted by the landlord U/S 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against an order whereby his petition for eviction U/S 14(1)(e) has been dismissed solely on the ground that the petition cannot be instituted because Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 states that no suit for eviction can be filed without obtaining permission from the Competent Authority if the premises are situated in a slum area. The landlord did not dispute the fact that the premises are situated in the slum area and are covered by the Act, but the contention was that on account of the amendment made by the Amendment Act of 1976, it was no longer necessary to get permission from the Competent Authority as the new Chapter Iiia had introduced a new procedure for the trial of applications U/S 14(1)(e) and the newly introduced Section 14A. The Rent Controller found that as far as Section 14A was concerned, it had an over-riding effect over all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-17-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Cal199,(1977)1CompLJ175(Cal),82CWN252
M.N. Roy, J.1. This appeal from appellate decree is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 30, 1970, made in Title Appeal No. 337 of 1970 by Shri S. K. Dutta. Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore, affirming thereby the judgment and decree dated January 30, 1970, made in Title Suit No. 234 of 1968, by Shri D. K, Panda, Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore.2. The plaintiff-respondent, being the owner of the premises in suit brought the Title Suit in question against the defendant appellant for recovery of khas possession by eviction and for mesne profits and also for compensation for damages Caused to the same. It was alleged that the defendant appellant was a tenant in respect of two bed rooms, one privy and one verandah at a monthly rent of Rupees 35/-, payable according to English calendar month. It was contended that the tenant defendant broke open a portion of the wall in between the bed rooms of his tenancy, made a hole in the wall of the privy and broke other portion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-24-1977
Reported in : 13(1977)DLT323
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J. (1) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners, Shri Muni Lal Vohra and Shri Hira Lal Vohra, praying that the order (Annexure A.6), dated 19th June, 1974, whereby the Assistant Assessor and Collector, Delhi Municipal Corporation, enhanced the rateable value of the property No. 2537/X, known was RamJas Building, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, from Rs. 44,010 to Rs. 82,350 as well as the order of Shri O. P. Singla, Additional District, Judge, Delhi, dated 23rd April, 1976, upholding on appeal the aforesaid order of the Assistant Assessor and Collector be quashed. The Delhi Municipal Corporation has been imp leaded as the first respondent and Shri O. P. Singia has been imp leaded as the second respondent.(2) The petitioners are the owners of the aforesaid Ramjas Building situated on Plot No. Ii, Block No. Iv, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, which bears the Municipal No. 2537/X. The petitioners let out the entire ground floor of the building with attached bath and lav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-12-1977
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi641
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) (ORAL).-THIS is a Revision under Section 25B, sub-section (8), of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, arising from an eviction petition brought under Section 14(1)(e) which, was tried under the new procedure. The Additional Rent Controller rejected the application for leave on the ground that it was belated. He then held that as there was no permission to defend the eviction petition, the provisions of Section 25B(4) had to apply and hence, eviction had to follow. There are two objections to the procedure adopted by the Additional ]Rent Controller. Firstly, it is submitted that the application for leave to defend was belated because the tenant was ill and hence, the application could not be filed within 15 days. It is submitted that the period could be extended. Regarding the other point, it is submitted that even if Section 25B(4) is applicable, still, the eviction order should not have been passed. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the fact that the sale-deed wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-03-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Delhi107; 13(1977)DLT204; 1978RLR145
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (No. 9 of 1887) against the judgment and decree of Shri B. B. Gupta, Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, dated 4th Oct., 1972, in Suit No. 3343 of 1972.2. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein, Shri Mohd. Usman, for recovery of Rs. 561.75p. alleging that the petitioner herein, Shri Ganga Ram, was a statutory tenant under him on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-, and that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi assessed the rate able value of the house No. 369 at Rs. 1,720/- and imposed other charges like water tax, scavenging tax, fire tax, etc. amounting to Rs. 111.80p. It was also alleged in the plaint that the petitioner (tenant) had sublet the premises in his tenancy to three persons who were paying rent to him amounting to Rs. 78.25p. per month, that the said amount was taken into consideration by the Corporation in determining the rateable value of the premises, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-08-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Raj255; 1977()WLN441
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, C.J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff (East) Jaipur City dated 6th Oct., 1972 whereby he permitted an amendment to be incorporated in the plaint.2. A suit was filed by the respondent for the ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 for the payment of the arrears of rent. It so happened that during the pendency of suit his son failed in the examination and, therefore, a necessity was felt by the plaintiff that his son be rehabilitated in some business and for that purpose an application was filed that the shop in dispute was required for his personal necessity and it was in these circumstances that he applied for the permission to amend his plaint. This prayer of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant on the ground that the fresh cause of action cannot be made the basis for amendment and therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-14-1977
Reported in : AIR1977SC1884; (1977)3SCC160; [1977]3SCR603; 1977(9)LC461(SC)
Jaswant Singh, J.1. These two appeals by special leave granted by this Court which are directed against the judgment and order dated 20th March, 1972 of the High Court of Bombay in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1685 and 1686 of 1969 shall be disposed of by this judgment. 2. The subject matter of dispute which has wended its way to this Court is a godown, being godown No. 2 built on Plot No. 37 bearing C S No. 130, Elphinstone Estate at Masjid Siding Road, Kurla Street, Bombay 9 which belongs to Port Trust, Bombay. The respondents, M/s. Benett Coleman & Co. got the aforesaid plot No. 37 as also plot No. 36 on lease from the Port Trust, Bombay, on August 1, 1933 on a yearly rent of Rs. 416.89 On the said plot No. 37, the respondent erected some godowns which alongwith certain other buildings that had grown up in a haphazard manner and could be described as slums were destroyed as a result of terrific explosions which occurred on April 14, 1944 in the Bombay Docks. Being of the view tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-22-1977
Reported in : (1977)18GLR848
J.B. Mehta, Ag. C.J.1. The plaintiffs-landlords have come in this Revision-Application as both the Courts have refused to pass the decree of eviction from the suit block after the defendant-tenant had shifted to his newly constructed bungalow on October 20, 1969.2. The short facts which have given rise to this litigation are as under. The defendant, Dr. Kantilal Shah has been a tenant in the suit house of the plaintiffs. There is a dispute as to whether the first block was given in 1946 as stated by the defendant or in 1948 as stated by the plaintiffs or whether this suit block which has been almost for all the time used as residential block was first let or after some short time as contended by the defendant. The defendant, however, had also got from time to time three other blocks in this very building. Thereafter, when in 1958 the defendant shifted to the hospital premises near Dandia Hanuman, where he had got four blocks out of which one he occupied for his residence and three for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-02-1977
Reported in : (1979)81BOMLR234
Jahagirdar, J.1. This is a tenant's petition against the decree passed by the learned Fourth Extra Assistant Judge of Poona whereby the plaintiff's suit for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner was decreed. The petitioner and the respondent will hereinafter be called 'the defendant' and 'the plaintiff' respectively. This petition raises an interesting question of law relating to the consequences of the withdrawal by the notification of the provisions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Bombay Rent Act') from certain areas to which the said provisions had been made applicable earlier.2. Admittedly the defendant was in possession of a part of the house No. 589, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises', situated at Saswad in Purandar Taluka of Poona District. The defendant entered in the suit premises as a tenant in January 1963 and continued to occupy the same as a tenant. It is said that the initial rent...
Tag this Judgment!