Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-19-1995
Reported in : ILR1995KAR3109
ORDERVenkataraman, J1. The petitioner has filed this Petition for quashing the order dated 18.4.95 in HRC/DC/A-152-1994-95 passed by the second respondent and for a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction declaring that order dated 14.3.95 passed by the third respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable and to consider the matter afresh by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence before it in HRC/ACC(E) 274/94 and proceed with the case thereafter.2. The facts giving rise to this Petition in brief are as hereunder: The Revenue Inspector attached to the office of third respondent, House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Bangalore, gave a report dated 23.8.94 to the effect that the premises bearing No. 544, Ground Floor, First Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore, had fallen vacant. The Controller issued a notice to the petitioner-landlord to show cause as to why the vacancy was not reported. The petitioner by his reply dated 30.8.94 while admitting that the premis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-26-1995
Reported in : AIR1995SC1781; JT1995(4)SC187; 1995(3)SCALE197; (1995)3SCC709; [1995]3SCR817
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. The short question which falls for consideration in the present appeal is whether on the coming into operation of the notification on 26th October, 1983 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the three applications made by the tenant for relief under the Act survive or not.The relevant facts are that the suit premises were governed by the Act till 29th December, 1983. On 4th February, 1983 and 13th February, 1983, the respondent-tenant filed variously three applications, viz., (i) R.C.15/83 for direction to permit him to deposit rent in the court (ii) R.C. 16/83 for fixation of fair rent and (iii) R.C. 17/83 to prevent inconvenience. The State Government issued notification dated 29th December, 1983 exempting w.e.f. 26th October, 1983 from all the provisions of the Act, among others, buildings wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-06-1995
Reported in : 60(1995)DLT136
Arun Kumar, J. 1. The point involved in the present case is in a very narrow compass. It is: Can a plaintiff having withdrawn his suit under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seek revival of the suit through application under Section 151 of the Code? Briefly, the facts are that the appellants filed the petition for eviction of the respondents tenants on the ground contained in Clause (a) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act onthe ground of non-payment of rent on 2nd September, 1987. On 9th January, 1991, the learned Counsel for the petitioners (appellants herein) made the following statement before the Additional Rent Controller:'Present: Counsel for the petitioners. Statement of Shri S.S. Malhotra for petitionersAs the agreed rate of rent is Rs. 30,000/- p.m., the petition be dismissed as withdrawn.'On the basis of the said statement, the Addl. Rent Controller passed the following order on the same day'In view of the statement of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-18-1995
Reported in : 1995(2)CTC26
ORDERKanakaraj, J. 1. The petitioners do not dispute the fact that they had encroached on the Main Road in Mettur Dam years ago. The respondent Town Panchayat had been collecting encroachment fees. In the year 1990, the respondent took steps to evict the petitioners. W.P. Nos. 3892, 4836 and 4837 were filed in 1991 and these Writ Petitions were allowed as follows:'In case, the petitioners are encroachers, it is open to the Mettur Town Committee, Mettur Dam, Salem District, to take action against the petitioners according to law, after giving notice to the petitioners. It is also well settled that even assuming that the petitioners are encroachers, procedure prescribed for eviction of encroachment had to be followed before dispossessing the encroachers.'Thereafter notices were issued in June, 1992 Under Section 182(1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (hereinafter called the Act) giving 15 days to remove the encroachments. Though the Mettur Town is governed by the Mettur Townshi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-15-1995
Reported in : AIR1996Raj182
Arun Madan, J. 1. This civil second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C., 1908 has been preferred to this court against the judgment and decree, dated 7th March, 1995 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal on the ground of default preferred by the defendant-appellant while maintaining the decree for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises on the grounds of nuisance and sub-letting.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that a civil suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') from the suit shop situated in old sabji mandi behind Johari Bazar, Jaipur, was filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter, referred to as the 'respondent'). It was alleged in the suit that the suit shop was rented out to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month and that it was an old tenancy. The plaintiff filed the said suit for eviction of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-11-1995
Reported in : AIR1996AP149; 1995(3)ALT853
ORDER1. In all these three Revision Petitions common question of facts and law arises and hence, 1 am disposing of the same by this common judgment. I refer to the ranking of the parties as arrayed in the trial Court.2. The proceedings arise under the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners in C.R.P. No. 520 of 1992 are the original tenants. They have challenged the order of eviction passed against them on the ground of default in paying arrears of rent in R.C.C. No. 80 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsiff), Rajahmundry, dated 15th October, 1990; before the lower appellate authority i.e., sub-Judge, Rajahmundry in R.C.A. No. 20 of 1990. To this R.C.A. No. 20 of 1990, the landlord had filed cross-objections challenging the order of the Rent Controller in refusing eviction on the ground of alternative accommodation secured by the tenants. The lower appellate Court dismissed R.C.A. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-26-1995
Reported in : [1996]87CompCas557(Guj); (1995)2GLR1752
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A very substantial and significant question that arises for consideration and determination is whether a conviction and eviction of a service occupier under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, for withholding company's premises after termination of employment, by any reason, is competent and maintainable or not in view of the protection and provision of section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 2. The appellant herein - original complainant who was working as deputy manager in 'New Shorrock Mills', a unit of Mafatlal Industries Limited ('the company', for short) had filed Criminal Case No. 6545 of 1988 on October 18, 1988, in the court of the learned Chief J.M.F.C., Nadiad, inter alia, contending that respondent No. 1 original accused has wrong fully withheld possession of room No. 30 in New Shorrock Nagar, the property of the company ('the disputes property', for short), after his retirement from the employment of the company...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-13-1995
Reported in : (1996)113PLR51
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. By this common judgment we propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 11538 of 1992 tilled Radhika Theatre and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. Civil Writ Petition No. 11537 of 1992 tilled Prem Enterprises and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.. Since common questions have been raised which are subject matter of the controversy, therefore, both the petitions are being disposed of together.2. The relevant facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 11538 of 1992 titled Radhika Theatre and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. are that Radhika Theatre is being run at Rewari. The Administrator, Municipal Committee, Rewari served a notice dated 1.2.1988 upon the petitioner for increasing the annual rateable value of the said Theatre for the purpose of House Tax, The rateable value of the property in question was proposed to be increased from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 60,000/-. The petitioner filed objections but the same were rejected. The rateable value was fixed at Rs. 36,000/-. An app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-02-1995
Reported in : JT1995(4)SC401; 1995(3)SCALE354; (1995)4SCC718; [1995]3SCR1062
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. Leave granted in SLP NOS. 3554, 5453, 6054, 2815/79, 3182/87, 4150/92, 12520/86 and 5791/95.2. These appeals by Certificate under Article 133 arise from the judgment of the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Smt. Chandra Rani v. Vikram Singh [1979] A L J 401. The respondents laid the suits in the Courts of Small Causes for recovery of arrears of rent or for rent and possession from the appellants. On their committing default in payment of rent in pending suit, their defence was struck off under Order 15 Rule 5 of CPC as amended by U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976, U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act 37/1972 and U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) President's Act 19/73. They challenged the vires of Order 15 Rule 5. On reference, the Full Bench held that it is not inconsistent with the CPC Central (Amendment) Act 104/76 (for short, 'the Central Act') and is not void under Article 254(1) of the Constitution.3. By U.P. Act 37/72, Section 4 of the Provincial Small...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-27-1995
Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ1031
R.S. Garg, J.1. The appellant-defendant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12-12-1986, passed in regular Civil Appeal No. 59-A of 1984, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, a Camp Janjgir, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28-7-1983, passed in Civil Original Suit No. 82-A of 1980, by the Civil Judge, Class II, Janjgir, has preferred this second appeal against the order of his eviction on the ground of Section 12(l)(a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant, pleading that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff on monthly rental of Rs. 170/-. The defendant did not pay rent for the period between June, 1977 to May 1978 and, as such, was in arrears. On 19-6-1978, notice of demand was given to the defendant but despite that he did not deposit rent with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was called upon to file civil suit No. 73-A of 1978, which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff unde...
Tag this Judgment!