Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-10-1980
Reported in : 1981RLR164
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The appellants were the tenant of the respondent in the disputed premises situated at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. One of the terms of the lease dt. 17.9.53, was as follows : 'THATthe lessee shall not be entitled to sublet or part with possession of the premises without the written permission of the landlady provided that the lessee shall have the right to allow the use of the premises to their sister or associate concern, the liability of the lessee to pay to the landlady covenated rent thereforee remaining absolute.' (2) The respondent landlady on 9.3 1972, filed an eviction petition on the ground that the tenant had sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the tenanted premises to M/s Associated Traders and Engineers(P) Ltd., without her written consent. The case of the tenant was that M/s. Associated Traders and Engineers(P) Ltd., were their associate or a sister concern and they were using the premises with express written permission of the landlady ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-11-1980
Reported in : AIR1980SC2012; (1980)2SCC120; [1980]2SCR746
A.D. Koshal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated August 7, 1979, of a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi accepting a petition made by the landlady for revision of the order of an Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter called the Controller) of Delhi refusing to direct eviction of the tenant.2. The landlady had sought eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground covered by Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), namely, that she required them bona fide for occupation as a residence for herself. Her application being triable in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 25B of the Act, the tenant sought the Controller's leave to contest it on grounds which were stated in his affidavit. The leave was granted and thereafter the tenant filed a written statement contesting his eviction which was ultimately disallowed. The learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-23-1980
Reported in : (1980)16CTR(P& H)45; [1980]125ITR152(P& H)
B.S. Dhillon, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Income-tax References Nos. 110 and 111 of 1979. The said references pertain to assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, respectively.2. The common dispute involved in both the references relates to the estimate of the gross annual letting value of building No. 349/13, situate at Mall Road, Amritsar. The building is said to have been constructed in the year 1938. For the years under consideration, the assessee declared the gross annual letting value of the building at Rs. 6,000 each but the ITO valued it at Rs. 12,000. The AAC, in appeal, confirmed the gross annual letting value at Rs. 12,000, as estimated by the ITO. The assessee filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal. The contention raised on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal was that in view of the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the assessee could not charge more than the fair rent determined under the provisions of the said Act and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-09-1980
Reported in : 18(1980)DLT36
Harish Chandra, J.1. The petitioner is a landlord who filed an eviction petition against the respondents on 7th April, 1979 on the ground covered by clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The need was based on the forthcoming retirement of the petitioner on 31st August, 1980. The respondents applied for leave and by an order dated 13th September, 1979 were granted leave to contest, on all grounds except those set out in paras 5 and 13 of the application for leave to contest.2. One of the grounds on which the leave to contest was granted was the plea that the eviction petition was premature having been filed without a present cause of action as the date of retirement giving rise to the need of the premises was 31st August, 1980, more than one year after the filing of the petition.3. After the grant of leave to contest, on this among grounds, the learned Rent Controller proceeded to consider the ground of prematurely of the eviction application, there and then and by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-12-1980
Reported in : ILR1980Delhi329
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) The petitioner is a tenant of respondent No. 1. The jurisdiction of the Estate Officer acting under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants), Act, 1971, in issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner, dated 1st March, 1979, is challenged in this writ petition. For the purpose of determining the said jurisdiction a proper construction of the definition of 'Public premises' in section 2(e) 'of the said Act is necessary. Section 2(e) is as follows : '(E)'public premises' means and premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes ( I ) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by or on behalf of (i) any company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty-one per cent, of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government; and (ii) any Corporation (not being a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, or a local auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-14-1980
Reported in : [1983]53CompCas693(Cal)
ORDER (1) That all the property, rights and powers of the transferor-company specified in the first, second and third parts of the Schedule hereto and all other property, rights and powers of the transferor-company be transferred without further act or deed to the transferee-company and, accordingly, the same shall pursuant to Section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, be transferred to and vest in the transferee-company for all the estate andinterest of the transferor-company therein but subject nevertheless to all charges now affecting the same [other than (here set out any charges which by virtue of the compromise or arrangement are to cease to have effect) ]. (Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are not relevant for our purpose and, as such, omitted)SCHEDULE PART I (Insert a short description of the freehold property of the transferor-company) PART II (Insert a short description of the leasehold property of the transferor-company) PART III (Insert a short description of all stocks, sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-02-1980
Reported in : AIR1980SC1664; (1980)3SCC610; [1980]3SCR325; 1980(12)LC722(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. A short but interesting point affecting the validity and propriety of an order Under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, the Act), has been raised by counsel for the appellant. The decision of this question is of importance and we regard it as necessary to clarify the position so that the error committed by the trial judge may not be repeated.2. Rent Control laws are basically designed to protect tenants because scarcity of accommodation is a nightmare for those who own none and if evicted, will be helpless. Even so, the legislature has provided some grounds for eviction, and the Delhi law contains an extreme provision for striking out altogether the defence of the tenant which means that even if he has excellent pleas to negative the landlord's claim the court will not hear him. Obviously, this is a harsh extreme and having regard to the benign scheme of the legislation this drastic power is meant for use in grossly recalcitrant situat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-17-1980
Reported in : AIR1981P& H34
Harbans Lal, J. 1. This writ petitioner was heard by me in the first instance on April 25, 1980. After hearing the arguments on both sides, I came o the conclusion that there was an apparent conflict of opinion regarding the scope conflict of opinion regarding the scope and ambit of Section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953(hereinafter to be called the Act) between two Division Benches of this Court in Smt. Sham Kaur v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab 1974 Rev LR 25(Punj) and Balwant Singh v. Sodhi Lal Singh,1966-68 Pun LR 380: (AIR 1966 Punj 483) and keeping I view the importance of the questing of law involved, reference to a Full Bench was necessitated. It is in this background that the writ petition has been heard by the Full Bench. 2. For proper appreciation of the different contentions raised on both sides and the important legal question involved, brief reference to the fact of the case is necessary. Some land of Bahadur Singh, petitioner No. 4 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-04-1980
Reported in : AIR1980Delhi165; 17(1980)DLT344; 1980(1)DRJ33; 1980RLR215
Sachar, J.(1) Does the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 (Hereinafter to be called the Slum Areas Act) continue to apply to an application brought under clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be called the Rent Act) after the amendmedts made in the Rent Act incorporating amongst others Chapter Iiia by means of Act 18i of 1976 is the question that has been referred to a larger bench for decision, because of the different views expressed by the learned single Judges of this court.(2) Clauses (a) to (e) of Proviso to sub section (1) of Section 14 of the Rent Act provide grounds on which an application for recovery of possession of any premises can be made by the landlord. Clause (e) permits an application for recovery of possession to be made on the ground that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependant on him. Prior to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-09-1980
Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc. - 447 U.S. 27 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 (1980) Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc. No. 79-45 Argued January 15, 1980 Decided June 9, 1980 447 U.S. 27 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Syllabus A Florida statute ( 659.141(1)) prohibits out-of-state banks, bank holding companies, and trust companies from owning or controlling a business within the State that sells investment advisory services. Another statute ( 660.10) prohibits all corporations except state-chartered banks and trust companies and national banks located in Florida from performing certain trust and fiduciary functions. Appellee out-of-state bank holding company's proposal to operate appellee investment management subsidiary in Florida was rejected by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on the ground that it was prohibited by 659.141(1). Appellees then brou...
Tag this Judgment!