Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-22-2003
Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj819; 2003(4)WLC790
..... act. no doubt, that act stood repealed on 9.2.1959, when 1958 act came into force. the question, therefore, to be posed is which one of these two acts is to govern, whether the 1952 act or the 1958 act at this stage, we must pay due regard to section 57 of the 1958 act. that says: '57. repeal and savings.- (1) the delhi & ajmer rent control act, 1952 (38 of 1952), insofar as it is applicable to the union territory of delhi, is hereby repealed. (2) notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said act pending, at the commencement of this act ..... common question of law arises in these four appeals:-'whether the proceedings for fixation of standard rent under the repealed act pending on the date of commencement of the rajasthan rent control act, 2001, would be governed by the rajasthan premises (control of rent & eviction) act 1950 (for short the old act) or by the provisions of rajasthan rent control act 2001 (new act) which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.03.?'2. civil first appeal nos. 294/03, and 373/2003, ..... manner till the tenancy subsists.(2) any agreement for increase of rent in excess of 5% per annum shall be void to that extent.section 14. procedure for revision of rent.-(1) the landlord may seek revision of rent under section 6 or section 7 by submitting a petition before the rent tribunal accompanied by affidavits and documents, if any.(2) on filing of such petition the rent tribunal shall issue notice accompanied by copies of petition, affidavits and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-04-2003
Reported in : 2003(2)CTC129; (2003)2MLJ164
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. 1. In all these writ petitions the validity of the Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2 of 1996) whereunder Clause (f) was added to the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as Act 3 of 1922) is being challenged. Under the said Amendment Act 2 of 1996 the properties owned by the religious institutions are exempted from the purview of the Act 3 of 1922.2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the property belonging to various religious institutions. The Division Bench referred these cases by their order dated 15.10.1996 to a larger Bench, as a doubt is raised as to whether the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council, 1972 (85) L.W 760 dealt with the right of the tenants under Section 9 of the main Act 3 of 1922 alone or also dealt with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-29-2003
Reported in : (2003)135PLR250
Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner is a tenant on an industrial Plot in Chandigarh. Respondents have filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) in the year 1999. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, a Notification was issued by the Chandigarh Administration which reads as under:GOVERNMENT OF INDIAEXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITYCHANDIGARH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2002(KARTIKA 16, 1924 SAKA)FINANCE DEPARTMENTNOTIFICATION THE 7th NOVEMBER, 2002No. l985-UTFI(l)2002/9055 - in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 read with the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Extension to Chandigarh) Act,1974 (Act No. 54 of 74) and the Govt. of India's notification No.5.0.22(5) dated 8th January, 1950., the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is pleased to direct that the provisions of the aforesaid Act shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-12-2003
Reported in : 2004IAD(Delhi)357; 107(2003)DLT58; 2003(71)DRJ81
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge dated 8.8.2002.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under.3. respondent Bani Jagtiani Trust is a public charitable trust. The property A-60, Kailash Colony, New Delhi is the property of the trust. First floor of the said property besides a garage and a servant quarter was let out to the appellant by the trust at a monthly rental of Rs. 3, 000/- in the year 1980. 4. By resorting to Section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the rent could be increased by 10%. Section 6A reads as under:'6A. Revision of Rent .-- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the standard rent, or where no standard rent is fixed under the provisions of this Act, in respect of any premises, the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, may be increased by ten per cent, every three yeaRs. '5. The respondent gave notice on 14.1.19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-26-2003
Reported in : 2003VIIAD(Delhi)284; 104(2003)DLT1018
C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. By way of the present petition the petitioner assails the order dated 28th May, 2001 passed by Shri G.P. Thareja, Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi setting aside the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller and dismissing the eviction petition.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of premises bearing Flat No. 302, Mansarover Building, 90, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The said premises was let out to the respondent vide lease deed dated 21st February, 1978 for a period of three years. Even after the expiry of the said period the respondent continued to retain the said premises. In April, 1986 the rate of rent of premises was Rs. 3,128/- per month. From August, 1989 the respondent without any notice from the petitioner under Section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended in the year 1988 started sending cheques for payment of rent of the said premises at the rate of Rs. 3,150/- per month. It is alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-24-2003
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4732; 2004(3)KarLJ49
ORDERSrinivasa Reddy, J.1. All these petitions give rise to a common question of law, for my consideration. The question is, whether by operation of Section 5 of The Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the present Act' for short) the landlords of the premises involved in these petitions are entitled to recover possession of the premises without the need to take recourse to Section 27 of the Act.2. Let me first refer to the background which has given rise to this question. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short) provided for inheritability of tenancy by the legal representatives of the original tenant. The inheritance was automatic and there was no end for this inheritance, in that, after the wife or husband of the original tenant, the sons and daughters and after them the grandson and grand-daughters could stake claim because the repealed Act recognized them all as statutory tenants by including in the definition of the term, 'tenant' the surviving spouse or any son ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-26-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)KarLJ592
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, an octogenarian, aggrieved by the order of eviction suffered by him on 27th September, 1997 preferred the present revision petition and after nearly six years the question whether the landlady would succeed in her endeavour and realise the fruits of this long drawn legal battle waged by her to recover the possession of her property from her never-say-die tenant is to be determined now, in this revision, nearly one and half decades after she first moved the Court below for relief.2. Of that there could be no doubt that this legal battle was fought passionately and bitterly, at times the parties going for each other's jugular veins the tenant taking the lead in this regard by filing an application under Section 340(2) read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr. P.C. for holding a preliminary inquiry as to the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 193 and 209 of the IPC by the landlord, followed closely by a similar application by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-08-2003
Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ87
ORDERA.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.1. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below rejecting petitioner's prayer for eviction of the tenant on the grounds available under Clauses (a) and (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, the petitioner-landlord has preferred this revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the revision petition, briefly stated, are as under:(i) The petitioner filed the eviction petition claiming that the respondent was a tenant under her in respect of the petition property on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and he had failed to pay rent of the said property from 1-2-1984 to 30-9-1985 in spite of several demands and legal notice dated 12-6-1985. She further claimed in the petition that the petition premises is required by her for the bona fide use and occupation of herself and her family members. (ii) The learned Munsiff on a detailed examination of the claim of the petitioner and the def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-17-2003
Reported in : ILR2004KAR1892; 2004(3)KarLJ310
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioners are the registered Co-operative Housing Societies under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (for short, hereinafter called as 'KSC Act' and 'KCS Rules' respectively). They are aggrieved of the amendment to Section 38 by inserting proviso to the KCS Act by Act No. 6 of 2001. They have filed these petitions seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari to strike down Section 5 of the Karnataka Act No. 6 of 2001, by inserting the proviso to Section 38 of the KCS Act contending that the same is unconstitutional and further sought for such other directions or direction of this Court that it may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of case.2. Certain necessary and relevant facts and the legal contentions urged by the petitioners are adverted to in this judgment for the purpose of considering and answering the points that would arise in these petitions by this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-14-2003
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT487
J.M. James, J. 1. The landlord is the revision petitioner. His prayer to evict the tenants under Section 11(4)(i)of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, in short, 'the Act' in R.C.P. No. 44/90 on the file of the Rent Controller, Cochin, was rejected. He challenged it by filing R.C.A. No. 16/92 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. But the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.2. The landlord rented out the petition schedule building on 1.8.1959 to Chandrasekhara Menon. The rent fixed, after enhancement, was Rs. 100/- per month. The tenant, his mother and his younger brother were residing in the scheduled building. In 1964, the tenant joined Defence Department and served upto 1987. The mother of the tenant was retaining the scheduled building, residing therein and was paying rent on behalf of the tenant. Meanwhile, he got married with the 1st respondent herein. On certain stage, she also joined his company. The tenant died. T...
Tag this Judgment!