Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-21-1981
Reported in : (1982)29CTR(Cal)15,[1983]141ITR419(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1970-71. The assessee is one of the co-owners of the house property known as Radia House situated in Bombay. She had one-eighth share in the said property. A part of the building, viz., two-thirds of the total floor area, has been in occupation of the tenants under certain lease agreements and the remaining one-third of the building has been in the occupation of the licensees under ' Leave and Licence ' system which has been in vogue in the State of Bombay. It appears that the said system has been adopted by the house-owners so that the occupants could not claim statutory protection under the Rent Control Act and they could be evicted by the owners at their will. It further appeared before the Tribunal that under this system the licence for occupation was generally given for a period not exceeding 11 months so that there might not be any possibility of the transactions being construed as lease. As per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-13-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Cal428
ORDERDipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The plaintiff is the Receiver appointed in Suit No. 1683 of 1964 (Sitaram Dehi v. Basdeo Dehi & Ors.) inter alia, over premises No. 13, Pretoria Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises).2. M/s. Loch Lomond Lodge (P) Ltd., the defendant, was a monthly tenant of the said premise's at a rent of Rs. 885.50 per month payable according to the English Calendar.3. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against the defendant for eviction on the grounds of wrongful addition and alteration to the premises and wrongful sub-letting. The plaintiff also claims mesne profits and damages.4. The plaintiff alleges that since the institution of this suit a number of challans in respect of rent deposited by the defendant have not been received from the Rent Controller Calcutta between January 1968 till October 1972 and that the defendant has not also made any deposit of rent in this Court -- during the said period.5. It is contended that the deposits of ren...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-24-1981
Reported in : 20(1981)DLT22; 1981(2)DRJ153; ILR1982Delhi861
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 12/1/1979 of the Rent Control Tribunal passing the order of eviction under section 14(l)(e) of the Act. Mr. Rajiv Behl has raised a preliminary objection that this second appeal is barred by time. (2) Section 39 of the Act prescribes a period of 60 days for the filing of an appeal in this court from the date of the order of the Tribunal. Order 41 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the impugned order. Needless to say that the copy of the order must be a certified copy. Rule 2(b)of Chapter I-A of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court Vol. V, which are applicable to this court, requires the filing of a copy of the judgment of the court of first instance along with a copy of the order of the first appellate court. The appellant filed the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-03-1981
Reported in : (1982)84BOMLR67
..... were challenged on the ground that they were inconsistent with the ordinary procedure as provided under the bombay rent control act. this challenge was repelled by the supreme court in the case of maganlal chhaganlal v. municipal corporation : [1975]1scr1 . t ..... repealed by implication is incorrect, but even the amendment carried out in 1978 to section 42 is indicative of the contrary intention of the legislature. section 42 was extensively amended by maharashtra act no. xi of 1978 and in place of tribunal of 3 arbitrators one man tribunal was provided. the qualifications of such tribunal were laid down in section 42(a). section 42(b) provides the remedy of approaching this one man tribunal. we are not concerned with other amended provisions for the decision of this case except the provision contained in section 42-h which is as follows:all appeals ..... but we cannot help observing that on these charges a punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate.38. however, mr. bobde, the learned counsel for the petitioner is on a stronger ground when he ..... 1972, it is not disputed before us that he was confirmed as junior clerk in the year 1958. subsequently, respondent no. 4 was transferred from the accounts department to the administrative department of the respondent ..... under section 42(2). in support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on certain observations contained in the supreme court judgment reported in re. article 143 constitution of india and delhi laws act a.i. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-31-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Delhi87; 20(1981)DLT364; 1981(2)DRJ262; ILR1982Delhi253
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Smt Ahmedi Begum is the owner of the property known as 'Dharampur Lodge' situated near Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar in terms of the registered lease deed executed on 12th April, 1948 was inducted as a tenant in the said property for five years on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000.00 . On 3rd April, 1953 another lease deed was executed between the aforesaid parties for a further period of five years. The tenant was in arrears of rent and he failed to pay the same in spite of a notice of demand dated 3rd June, 1957. His tenancy was also terminated by the said notice. (2) On 28th August, 1957 Smt. Ahmedi Begum filed a suit for eviction and recovery against the said tenant. On 31st August, 1959 the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi passed a decree for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 32.554/4.00 . The decree-holder took out execution in the court of the Subordinate Judge which was transferred to this court under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-07-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC537b; (1981)83BOMLR204; (1982)2CompLJ551(SC); 1981(1)SCALE62; (1981)1SCC523; [1981]2SCR466
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The appellant Natraj Studies (P.) Ltd., and the first respondent Navrang Studios, a firm, entered into an agreement on March 28, 1970, by which the latter granted the former 'leave and licence' for the use of their two studios and other premises described in list I annexed to the agreement and situated at 194 Kurla Road, Andheri Bombay, and the machineries, equipments, property setting materials etc. mentioned in list No. 2 annexed to the agreement. Though the agreement was initially for a period of 11 months it was extended from time to time. By an agreement dated November 5, 1972, the original agreement was extended for a period of eleven months from January 1, 1973. The 'leave and licence' agreement was thus in force on February 1, 1973, with effect from which date Section 15A was inserted in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, by an amendment (Maharashtra Act 17 of 1973). The effect of Section 15A was that any person who was in o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-06-1981
Reported in : 1981WLN323
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated December 9, 1980 of a learned single Judge of this Court by which he held the appellant guilty for contempt of court and sentenced her to one month's simple imprisonment and further to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and costs of the application.2. The appellant and respondent will hereinafter be referred as non-applicant and applicant respectively. The applicant instituted a suit for ejectment against the, non-applicant, in regard to shop No. 6 and certain other premises situate on Station Road Jodhpur. The suit was decreed by the Munsif city, Jodhpur on February 5, 1972. An appeal was preferred. The appellant's suit in respect of shop No. 5 was dismissed and for other premises, the decree was maintained on August 28, 1973 by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. A second appeal was lodged by the non applicant. In the second appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-01-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Delhi144; 19(1981)DLT293; ILR1981Delhi619; 1981RLR290
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.(1) This is a letters patent appeal from the order of a learned single judge dated 23-11-1973. (2) The salient facts are simple. The dispute centres round a plot of land No. 783-A situated in Mohalla Guru Nanakpura, Namaul. The single question is whether this plot was evacuee property. The respondents, Lala and Hari Ram (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) are father and SON. They claim that the said plot was owned by them and it was their ancestral property. (3) On 6-4-1963, this plot was listed as evacuee property in a report prepared by the Assistant Settlement Officer. That the said plot was an evacuee property was described as a 'new discovery' in the report. This is what the survey report said : 'ft is a new discovery. It is lying vacant at the spot. It is owned by one Hakim Sadiq Ali Patwari as told by Shri Net Ram member M. C. Illaqa.' The value of the property was estimated at Rs. 995. The officer who signed the survey report was one Sunder Dass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-20-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC1284a; 1981(1)SCALE401; (1981)2SCC535; [1981]2SCR962
Tulzapurkar, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Allahabad High Court on February 16, 1979 in Second Appeal No. 430 of 1970 whereby the High Court decreed the respondents' (landlords) suit for ejectment against the appellant (tenant) and the only question of substance raised in the appeal is whether when the landlords' notice demanding arrears and seeking eviction is sent by registered post and is refused by the tenant the latter could be imputed the knowledge of the contents thereof so that upon his failure to comply with the notice the tenant could be said to have committed wilful default in payment of rent ?2. The question arises in these circumstances : The appellant occupied shop No. 5 in Ivanhoe Estate, situated at Landure Cantonment, Mussorie, originally owned by one Parvij Waris Rasool, on an yearly rental of Rs. 250 payable by December 31, every year. The property at all material times was admittedly governed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-09-1981
Reported in : [1982]49STC181(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. This is the Commissioner's revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P Sales Tax Act. The respondent-assessee, a partnership firm, carried on business in foodgrains, oil-seeds and bardana at Mauranipur, Jhansi. In its assessment to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1961-62 the assessee had disclosed inter-State sales at Rs. 15,745. During the course of assessment proceedings on a scrutiny of the accounts the Sales Tax Officer found that in respect of purchases made by it as purchasing agent for ex- U.P. principals, it had used its own bardana, the value of which was Rs. 34,051.73. In the opinion of the Sales Tax Officer these sales of bardana were liable to be treated as inter-State sales. The contention of the assessee was that since it had made supplies of bardana from its own account, the same could not be treated as sales liable to tax under the Central Act. That argument was repelled and the aforesaid amount was brought to tax. In respect o...
Tag this Judgment!