Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-24-1996
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)551; 62(1996)DLT451; 1996(37)DRJ548
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 15, 1993 passed by Shri K.S.Gupta, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which inter-alia upheld the order passed by Shri P.D.Gupta, Additional Rent Controller striking out the defense of the appellant under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for not making payment/deposit in compliance with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act.(2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Filed petition for eviction on the ground of non payment of rent which was being contested by the appellant. On April 1, 1991 respondent filed an application on the allegations that an order under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed against the appellant on 2nd November, 1989 for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.250.00 per month with effect from March 1, 1987. On the application filed for withdrawal of rent it was reported that the appellant deposited only a sum of Rs.8250.00 by way...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-15-1996
Reported in : 1996IIAD(SC)117; AIR1996SC2951; JT1996(4)SC479; 1996(4)KarLJ540; 1996(2)SCALE197; (1996)3SCC55; [1996]2SCR663; 1996(1)LC682(SC)
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. These are tenant's appeals.2. Prem Chand Jain, who is since dead and is now represented by respondent No. 1, had filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Delhi, for the eviction of the appellant from the premises No. XI/4239-A, Raj Kishan, Jain Street, Municipal Ward No. XI, Darya Ganj, Delhi, on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting. This petition came to be tried by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, who passed an order on 24th March, 1971 under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Act') requiring the appellant to deposit all the arrears of rent due for the period from 1.6.1970 within one month from the date of the order and to deposit the future rent also at the rate of Rs. 200 p.m. every month by the 15th of each succeeding month after adjusting an amount of Rs. 800 which, admittedly, was received by Prem Chand Jain as part of the arrears of rent.3. While the proceedings were pending/before the Addi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-12-1996
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)576; AIR1996SC966; 1996(1)ALT33(SC); JT1996(1)SC234; 1996(4)KarLJ103; 1996(1)SCALE298; (1996)3SCC75; [1996]1SCR439
ORDER1. The petitioners are challenging the constitutionality of Explanation II to Section 2(22) and Section 76 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 (30 of 1987) (for short, 'the Act') in this writ petition, apart from other provisions of the Act challenge to which is decided in other connected matters. In this case we confine our consideration to the validity of the above provisions. It is contended in the writ petition and argued by Shri R. Venugopal Reddy, their learned senior counsel, that ryotwari pattas having been granted under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion in Ryotwari) Act (37 of 1956) (for short, 'the Inams Abolition Act') and the same having attained finality, the legislature is devoid of power under the Act to set at naught the effect of the grant of ryotwari patta to the archakas, service holders or employees covered under the Act by a legislative side-wind. It is their case that by gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-26-1996
Reported in : 63(1996)DLT577
C.M. Nayafr, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of three appeals S.A.O- Nos. 202181, 212181 and 13190 as they raise common questions of law The first two appeals arise out of judgment dated September 17, 1979 of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, and judgment dated May 7, 1981 passed by Rent Control Tribunal. (2) The respondent filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on August 21, 1978 for eviction of the appellants from one big room, two small rooms, verandah, part of open terrace in front etc. forming part of the tenancy premises on second floor, plot No. 27, House No. 4779, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The allegations were made that Kishori Lal, since deceased, was tenant under the respondent in respect of the above said premises since July 18, 1953 at rental of Rs. 771- per month, but has neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent within two months from service of notice dated December 18, 1977. The petition f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-06-1996
Reported in : 1997(4)ALLMR50; (1997)99BOMLR425
..... act;provided further that the provisions for appeal under the repealed law shall continue in force in respect of suits and proceedings disposed of thereunder.8. section 57(2) along with the proviso to the delhi and ajmer rent control act is also being reproduced as it has a bearing on the issue to be decided in this appeal:57.(2) notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said act pending, at the commencement of this act ..... section 57(2) proviso one of the delhi and ajmer rent control act (38 of 1952) which is parimateria with the provisions of section 59(2) of the goa rent act. shri ramani further contends that as held by the learned single judge, the original defendant may have deposited the rents, but this was not to the knowledge of the original plaintiff and as the rents ..... the provisions of this act' (meaning the control act of 1958)? does it mean that the proviso takes away what is given by sub-section (2), except in the matter of jurisdiction of the civil court to deal with an eviction matter which was pending before the control act of 1958 came into force ..... rents in court subject to the settlement of accounts and fixation of actual rent that could not dispense the defendant from making payment of rent directly to the lessor i.e. the original plaintiff now represented by respondents, at least after the decision of the administrative tribunal in 1967. it may be noted that the administrative tribunal by its order dated 15.4.67 had determined the rent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-26-1996
Reported in : 1996(1)CTC620; (1996)IIMLJ96
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in C. No. 239 of 1982, on the file of this Court, is the appellant. Plaintiff therein is the respondent.2. For the sake convenience, in this appeal parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.3. Plaintiff filed the above suit for the following relief:-(1) for specific performance of the contract for sale of the house and premises No. 106, Harrington Road, Madras-31 and in default direct the office of the Hon'ble Court to have the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff; (2) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the house and premises No. 106, or reliefs this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper; and (4) for costs of this suit'.4. The suit was filed on 22.4.1982, on the following allegations:-The schedule property admittedly belongs to the appellant and the same was taken on lease by Needle Industries (India) Ltd., for accommodating the office -cum-residence of its director and Secretary, and he came to occupy th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-01-1996
Reported in : 66(1997)DLT359; 1996(38)DRJ66
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) In a suit based on landlord-tenant relationship, the appellant has been ordered to be evicted from the suit premises. The defendant has come up in appeal. (2) It is not disputed that the plaintiffs- respondents are owner-landlords of the premises known as N-97, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. The defendant- appellant has been a tenant in the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 14,000.00 . The tenancy runs from month to month, parallel to English calendar month. By notice dated 10.7.1993 the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy of the defendant w.e.f. 31.8.1993 calling upon it to vacate the premises. The notice was replied to. On 3.12.1993, the defendant sent an amount of Rs. 14,000.00 to the plaintiff No.2. This amount was in the form of a bank draft dated 3.12.1993 and accompanied by letter dated 3.12.1993 sent through registered post. The suit for ejectment was filed on 3.1.1994. It was contested by the defendant -appellant mainly on two grounds : firstly, that the notice t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-23-1996
Reported in : 1996RLR189
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) [ED. facts : Appellants had leased out suit premises to respondents 1 to 4 by means of lease deed dt. 30.5.57. who had sub-let portions of premises per consent in deed. Alleging that some portions have been unlawfully sub-let in 1965 & 1969 to respdt, 5, they obtained permission u/S 19 of Slum Areas Act on 4.6.70 and sued respdt. for eviction u/S. 14(i) (b), (c) & (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Respdts. 1 to 4 alone contested and filed separate w/Ss contending that they had not sub-let any portion to respdt 5 and they had sub-let same to one MK. Bhatia who had done unlawful sub-letting to respdt. 5 and that they have applied for permission to sue respdt. 5. They also alleged that one Manak Chand was co-owner and co-landlord. Respdt. no. 5 also took the same position contending that Manak Chand was necessary party and in his absence it was a case of partial eviction. Reply of three appellants was that partition had taken place between them and Manak Chand and respdts. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-11-1996
Reported in : 65(1997)DLT44
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 227 praying for setting aside and quashing of the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in appeal under Section 38 of the Rent Control Act on 18.5.1996. Vide that order, the Rent Control Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner disallowing his prayer for amendment of the written statement by withdrawing the admission already made on record. In this case, one Raj Nath Jasrai had let out the premises in his capacity as the owner thereof to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said property was sold by the said Raj Nath Jasrai in favor of the petitioner on 19.12.1991. This fact is admitted by the petitioner in para 3(b) of reply on merits in his written statement filed before the Additional Rent Controller. Later on when the matter was ripe for evidence, the petitioner moved the Additional Rent Controller for leave to amend the written statement whereby the said admission was sought to be withdra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-16-1996
Reported in : 1997IAD(Delhi)420; 64(1996)DLT572; 1996(39)DRJ512
..... been held mandatory. 11.1 it was the case of an appeal under section 38(2) of delhi rent control act, 1958 which itself contains a provision for condensation of delay in filing an appeal if sufficient cause for delay was made out - a provision pan materia with section 5 of the limitation. act. rule 23 of the rules framed under the act attracts applicability of order 41 civil procedure code to the appeals filed under section 38 of the act. thus, rule 3a of order 41 would also be relevant. an appeal was filed before the rent control tribunal and admitted for hearing. on the appearance of the respondent the appeal was objected to as being barred by time. after several adjournments and lapse ..... an additional right to a litigant to claim condensation at the time of presenting the appeal. the provision of r.3a of 0.41 of the code cannot be read in such a way as to repeal the power conferred on a court by the substantive provisions for condensation of delay referred to in the aforesaid two provisions. '35. it must,therefore, be held that in spite of r.3a of 0.41 of the code, the court still has power to condone the delay under s. 5 of the limitation act and/or proviso to sub-section(2) of section 38 of the act as the case may be. the power conferred by r3a of 0.41 of the code .....
Tag this Judgment!