1
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-27-1983
Reported in : 24(1983)DLT355
M.L. Jain, J. (1) On 6-7-1962 an agreement of lease was reached between the respondent Smt. Girnari Devi and Gopal Dass, Dev Kumar and Chatur Bhuj Aggarwal (herein the Aggarwals) in respect of the disputed premises No. 20/1, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. One of the material conditions of this agreement was that the period of lease shall be ten years with effect from 15-7-1962. Another important term was that the Aggarwal were authorised to assign the demised premises for the use of any of the companies in which they or any of them is a director or for the use of any of the firms in which they or any of them is a partner. Out of them, Gopaldas and Dev Kumar arc since December 1959 two of the directors of M/s. Devi Dayal Metal Industries (Pvt) Ltd. (herein the appellants). The correspondence that ensued between the parties with regard to the payment of rent from 21-5-1963 onwards shows that rent was payable and was paid by the appellants. Chatur Bhuj Aggarwal has signed all these letters as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-18-1983
Reported in : AIR1984Bom96; 1984(2)BomCR478; ILR1984Bom1784a
Shah, J.1. These matters are before is on a single by his order dt. Oct. 26 1982. Masodkar. J. formulated the following two question for the consideration of a division Bench :Whether, by interpreting the provisions of s. 46(2) of the Act No, XIX of 1976 all the proceedings pending when chap. VII was enacted by that ACt and it came into force would be governed by the amended provisions of Chap. VII or otherwise weather the provisions of Section 46(2) maintaining two different procedures would be villative of Art. 14 of the constitution of India A few relevant facts in so far as they are material for deciding the reference need to be stated. In Writ Petition NO. 3144 of 1981 the respondents are the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay. They owned a property bearing old B. B. NO. 941 situated at Jackeria Bunder Boad, Bombay . On the said plot of land a building consisting of five rooms belonging . After giving a notice to quit dt. Jan. 22, 1975, on Mar. 19 1976 the respondent-Port Tru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-17-1983
Reported in : AIR1983P& H356
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.1. Whether any and every order of the Rent Controller appointed under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, against which a party may claim to be aggrieved, would now become appealable under S. 15(2) of the said Act by virtue of Notification No. S. O./71/HA-11/73/S. 15/78. Dated 8th May, 1978, is the somewhat significant question which falls for determination in this case by the Full Bench.2. Though the question aforesaid is primarily legal, yet the facts highlighting the issue deserve a somewhat detailed notice. The respondent-landlord herein had preferred a petition for ejectment under S. 13 of the Act against his tenant from a shop situated on Dev Samaj College Road. Ambala City on the ground of non-payment of rent from 1st of Sept., 1973, to the 31st of Jan., 1979 at a rate of Rs. 800 p. m. amounting to Rupees 52,000. In response thereto whilst contesting the same, the tenant admitted his liability to pa the arrears to the extent to Rs. 9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-12-1983
Reported in : 1985(1)BomCR1
D.N. Mehta, J.1. This suit involves the interpretation of the agreement dated 14th June, 1961 between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 as to whether the said agreement is an agreement of lease or an agreement of leave and licence. All other issues revolve round and are ancillary to this main issue.2. The plaintiff in the suit has prayed, firstly, for a declaration that defendant's Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and the original defendant No. 2 are in unauthorised, wrongful and illegal occupation of Plot No. 2-A, situated on the first floor of the building known as 'Vasant' at Peddar Road, Bombay, now known as Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg. Secondly, the plaintiff prays that the defendants, their servants and agents be directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said flat to the plaintiff. Thirdly, the plaintiff prays for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering or remaining upon or using and occupying the said flat. Fourthly, the plaintiff prays for a decree in sum of R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-07-1983
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi418; 1983(5)DRJ340; 1983RLR498
S.B. Wad, J.(1) These two petitions arise out of the allegations of procuring an ex parte eviction order by landlord Bhori Lal against his tenant Kishori Lal by alleged forgeries and other malpractices in the court of Iii Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. A few days back I had an occasion to examine the mal-practices in one of the Government Departments. That was a case of Nihal Singh v. Union of India, (Civil Writ Petition No. 187 of 1977). The mirror is now turned in words on the judicial institution. In a vibrant democracy all institutions must face a mirror, particularly, the judicial institution. It is because the citizens trust this institution for its objective, impartial and independent decision-making. The Courts of Rent Controller, a Sub-Judge and a Magistrate are courts of first instance. A citizen is required to rush to these courts more frequently than the superior courts to seek justice. These are the first courts of facts. From the point of view of administration of jus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-11-1983
Reported in : 24(1983)DLT205
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This second appeal by the landlady is directed against the judgment and order dated July 6, 1979 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby her first appeal was dismissed only on the ground that no proper notice terminating the contractual tenancy of the tenant State of Uttar Pradesh, has been served on the tenant. (2) The appellant had filed an eviction petition originally against the Export Trade Development Officer, Government U.P. Handicrafts and Government U.P. So there were two respondents in the original eviction petition. The ground taken for eviction was under clause (a) to proviso (1) to Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act i.e. non-payment of rent. Subsequently the eviction petition was amended and State of U.P. was imp leaded as a party through its Secretary. (3) The written statement filed on behalf of the respondents assigned by one Joint Industrial Director and the main plea was that no valid notice terminating the contractual tenancy was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-17-1983
Reported in : AIR1984Ker164
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The defendant in O. S. 193 of 1977 of the Munsiff's Court, Mavalikkara, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. The appellant is the tenant of a building belonging to the plaintiff-respondent. As per rental arrangement dated 8-10-1974, evidenced by Ext. A1, the building was let to the defendant, for one year. The agreed rent was Rs. 1.55 per day. After the expiry of the term, the defendant continued in occupation of the building. The plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 322 of 1975 for eviction and for arrears of rent. It was contended by the defendant in the said suit that there was no valid notice terminating the tenancy as contemplated by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice terminating the tenancy in that case was Ext. 85. By Ext 85 notice the tenancy was terminated with effect from 8-11-1975. According to the defendant, the tenancy should be terminated on the day preceding the date of tenancy. The contention of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-19-1983
Reported in : AIR1983SC1061; (1984)86BOMLR101; [1983]54CompCas702(SC); (1983)3CompLJ23(SC); 1983(2)SCALE151; (1983)4SCC269; [1983]3SCR657
D.A. Desai, J.1. AS the matter brooked no delay, after granting special leave to appeal, we proceeded to hear the appeal on merits. When hearing was over, we pronounced the following order and stated that the reasons would follow. The order reads as under :The appeal is allowed and the order made by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rejecting the Judge's Summons taken out by the appellants is set aside and the Judge's Summons is granted to the extent indicated herein.The appellants shall deposit Rs. 1, 50, 000 by or be fore March 1, 1983 in this Court. Respondent No. 2- Smt. Sabita V. Adapa shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property being a shop Nos. 8/9 on the ground floor of the building formerly known as 'Jagmohan Building No. 2' or as 'Ayaz Mansion' and now styled as 'Ram Kutir' situated at Station Road, Andheri, Bombay-400058 to the liquidator on or before February 28, 1983 who shall forthwith hand over possession o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-07-1983
Reported in : AIR1984Kant214; 1984(2)KarLJ132
Venkatachaliah, J. 1. Appellant, M/s. Sudarshan Trading Company Limited, is aggrieved by the judgment and decree D/-19-4-1983 made in Original Suit No. 3091 of 1980, on the file of the 10th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the respondent plaintiff's suit for ejectment and granting an order for possession. This appeal is in the list of admission cases. It is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel on both sides taken up for final hearing, and disposed of by this judgment 2. Respondent, Mrs. L. D'Souza, is the owner of premises No. 11, C. J. D'Souza Road, Civil Station, Bangalore, and appellant is the tenant. Letting is for non-residential purposes. On 26-12-1974, after an earlier lease for 3 years had come to an end, a fresh lease deed dated 26-12-1974, Ext. P. 1, was entered into between the parties. The term mentioned in Ext. P.1 was three years from 1-8-1974. Rent was Rs. 2,300/- per month. The period of 3 years under Ext. P. I having run out, respondent issued n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-18-1983
Reported in : AIR1983SC259; 1983(1)SCALE48; (1983)1SCC408; [1983]2SCR249
1. This appeal by certificate is filed against the judgment and decree dated July 29, 1970 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in First Appeal No. 438 of 1962 affirming the judgment and decree dated August 27, 1962 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 254 of 1959 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of the properties mentioned in Schedule-I attached to the plaint and for damages and other reliefs against the Union of India.2. The properties in question which are situated in the area which formed part of the former princely State of Junagadh originally belonged to one Haji Umar Kasam, a resident of Junagadh who died on May 22, 1936. The plaintiffs are his heirs and legal representatives.3. The Nawab of Junagadh accepted the accession of his State to Pakistan on August 13, 1947. On September 23, 1947 Haji Umar Kasam left Junagadh for Haj and sailed from Bombay by 'S.S. Akbar' on October 8, 1947. On October 24, 1947, t...
Tag this Judgment!