Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-07-2007
Reported in : RLW2008(1)Raj192
..... interpreting the provisions of the delhi & ajmer rent control act, 1952 and delhi rent act 1958, the majority view was that the term 'shall have regard to the provisions of this act' means the court shall have regard to the provisions of the new act which makes a provision with the non obstante clause. in that case, the non obstante clause under section 57 of the control act of 1958 while repealing the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 was as follows:57(1) the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, in so far as it is applicable to the union territory of delhi, is hereby repealed.(2) notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said act pending, at the commencement of this act, before any court ..... of the repealed act, as if the repealed act had continued in force and the new act had not been enacted. however, a right was given to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit or appeal or other proceedings under the old act within a period of 180 days of coming into force of the new act and to file a fresh petition in respect of the same subject matter in accordance with the provisions of the new act and that limitation was provided to be 270 days.38. this non obstante clause, if read with section 6 of the old act for fixation of standard rent and section 6 of the new act for revision of the rent with reference to section 29 of the new act dealing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-23-2007
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ109; AIR2007NOC1100(SB)
..... act. that act was repealed by madras building (lease and rent control) act, 1949. some of the provisions in that act were amended by the madras buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1951. subsequently, that act was repealed by tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1964 (tamil nadu act 18/1964). a perusal of the orders and acts referred to above shows that none of the orders or acts contain a provision similar or akin to that of section 11(17) of the kerala rent act. it is also pertinent to note that rent control acts of andhra pradesh, bihar, bombay, delhi ..... section 11(17) of the rent act.104. the kerala buildings (lease and rent control) ordinance, 1959 was promulgated with effect from 17th june, 1959 repealing the travancore cochin buildings (lease and rent control) act. 1950 and also the madras (lease and rent control) act as in force in the malabar district referred to in section 4 of the states re-organisation act, 1956. section 11 of the ordinance deals with eviction of a tenant but it had only sixteen sub-sections. the ordinance did not contain any provision similar to section 11(17) of the present rent act. the kerala buildings (lease and rent control) bill, 1958 ..... rent controller held that the entrustme was on 17-11-1950 for a monthly rent of rs. 75/- and hence the revision petitioners are not entitled to get the benefits under section 11(17) of the rent act. revision petitioners appealed. rent control ..... hands of that eminent tribunal.92. ours is a democratic .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-30-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD137; 2007(4)ALT348; AIR2007NOC2064(FB)(AP)
..... delhi rent control act during the pendency of the proceedings initiated by the landlord with the rent controller, taking away the buildings for which monthly exceeded rs. 3,500/- from the purview of the rent controller, the said amendment had the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the rent controller to adjudicate the pending applications. thus the supreme court declined to construe the amendment enhancing the rent of the building for the purpose of exemption as retrospective in nature so as to affect the pending proceedings before the rent controller. their lordships also referred to section 6(c) of the general clauses act 1897 and held that the right of the landlord under the repealed ..... act was not on the statute book. when the abolition act was passed it did not repeal the u.p. agriculturists relief act. both the acts, therefore, continued on the statute book till 12-7-1958. on that date act xvi of 1953 was passed. section 67 of that act repealed the u.p. agriculturists relief act. while repealing the act it was not stated whether the repeal was to operate retrospectively or not but by section 1(2) the amending act ..... is of change of forum, it ceases to be a question of procedure only. a forum of appeal or proceedings is a vested right as opposed to pure procedure to be followed before a particular forum. the right becomes vested when the proceedings are initiated in the tribunal or the court of first instance and unless the legislature has, by express words or by necessary .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-21-2007
Reported in : (2008)149PLR801
K.C. Puri, J.1. Vide this judgment, I intend to dispose of R.S.A. Nos. l876 of 1984, 3498 of 1985 and 18 of 1986, titled above. However, facts are being extracted from R.S.A. No. 3498 of 1985.2. The brief facts of the case are that one Dhanpat Singh, plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration for declaring sale deeds dated 13.3.1981 and 26.5.1981 as illegal, void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff and in the alternative he sought possession of the suit land. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of land measuring 3 kanals 6 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 717 situated in the area of village Premgarh and land measuring 6 Kanals 9 Marias bearing Khasra No. 5122/2138 situated in the area of Sutehri. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 17 were joint owners in possession of land measuring 24 Kanals 2 Marias situated in village Sutehri and land measuring 18 Kanals situated at village Premgarh as detailed fully in the plaint. They orally partitioned the j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-04-2007
Reported in : 2008(1)ShimLC175
Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, decree dated 26.3.2004, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2001 setting aside the judgment, decree dated 19.3.2001 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur in case No. 74-1 of 1998.2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 24.6.1991 passed by Collector Sadar, Sub Division, Bilaspur and order dated 12.3.1997 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi are void and not binding on appellant inasmuch as the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (for short 'Public Premises Act') is not applicable, the appellant is a tenant in the suit premises. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in possession of the appellant has also been prayed. In case appellant is dispossessed from the suit premises during the pendency of the suit then possession may also be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-13-2007
Reported in : AIR2008SC876; 2008(56)BLJR560; 2008(1)BomCR550; JT2008(1)SC31; 2007(14)SCALE556; (2008)3SCC279; 2008AIRSCW208; AIR2008SC876; 2008(3)SCC279; 2008(1)LH(SC)128; 2008(2)ICC147
..... act provides for an appeal to an independent judicial officer against orders passed by the estate officer. these provisions do not, therefore, suffer from any infirmity. in fact, dr chitale did not pursue this objection seriously.43. it was on the aforementioned premise that the dicta laid down in ashoka marketing ltd. (supra) must be considered wherein this court held that the act overrides delhi rent control act, 1958, although both were acts ..... 621 : satish chander v. delhi improvement trust. 1950 act was repealed by the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1958 wherein, however the jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred. a constitution bench of this court in : [1967]3scr399 : northern india caterers pvt. ltd. v. state of punjab held section 5 thereof to be void as an ..... scc 440 at 508 : narendra kumar maheshwari v. union of india and ors. : air1981sc234 : maharao sahib shir bhim singhji v. union of india and ors.; : 1988(38)elt225(sc) : j.r. raghupathy and ors. v. state of a.p. and ors.; (2002) 100 dlt 487 : uttam parkash bansal and ors. v. l.i ..... :60. having regard to the fact that the tribunal in the notice to be sent to the precede is required to set out the main grounds; evidently the primary onus in relation thereto would be on the state. however, once the tribunal satisfied itself about the existence of grounds, the burden of proof would be upon the precede.interpretative approval48. section 5 of the act, on a plain reading, would place the entire .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-22-2007
Reported in : ILR2007KAR3862; 2008(1)KarLJ564
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 7007/96 dated 20.1.01.2. The Plaintiff/Trust represented by its trustees filed a suit for possession of the schedule premises and for mesne profits alleging that plaintiff is the owner of the non-residential premises bearing Nos. 232 and 233 situate at A.S. Char street, Chickpet; the defendant is in occupation of the premises on a rental of Rs. 1,000/- per month and the tenancy commences on first of every month; the schedule property was measuring about 40' East to West and 10.5' North to South; consequent upon the demolition of the portion of the premises by the Bangalore City Corporation for widening the road, the measurement came to be reduced to 28' East to West and 10.5 North to South; stating that building is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction, plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing legal notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-05-2007
Reported in : AIR2008SC187; 2007(2)BLJR3030; 2007(6)BomCR801; JT2007(11)SC484; (2008)1MLJ51(SC); 2007(11)SCALE630; (2007)8SCC559
ORDER BY THIS COURT4. On February 21, 2005, notice was issued by this Court. Status quo as regards possession was ordered to be maintained. On April 18, 2005, leave was granted. Pending appeal, stay of dispossession was continued subject to the tenant depositing a sum of Rs. twenty four lakhs with the Registry of the Court within eight weeks which was allowed to be withdrawn by the landlord without furnishing security. The matter was ordered to be placed for final hearing and that is how the matter is before us.SUBMISSIONS5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.6. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant- tenant contended that all the courts committed an error of law and of jurisdiction in passing the decree of eviction against the tenant. He submitted that the suit filed by the landlord was not maintainable and it ought to have been dismissed by the courts below. He also submitted that the question as to constitutional validity of clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-15-2007
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ791
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This revision petition is by the landlord, who urged the ground available under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to evict the tenant. The Rent Controller allowed eviction only under latter count and rejected on the former part. In appeal by the tenant and cross-objection by the landlord the eviction ordered under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act was reversed and the order on the other grounds was sustained. Therefore, this revision petition by the landlord.2. It is contended that the bonafides urged by the landlord has been concurrently found by the Authorities below. But the tenant was given the benefit in terms of the first Proviso to Section 11(3) of (sic) Act as it was found that a building owned by the landlord with Number 173 was in his (sic) at the material point of time. It is (sic) that this finding entered by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Rent Control ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-31-2007
Reported in : AIR2008AP23; AIR2008Bom23(FB)
H.L. Gokhale, Acting C.J.1. Writ Petition No. 721 of 2006 is filed by a teacher working in a primary school run by the Cantonment Board at Ahmednagar. The respondent No. 3 to the said writ petition is another teacher working in the said school and claims to be senior to the petitioner. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress by the order dated 17-2-2005 issued by the Cantonment Board. That order was challenged by respondent No. 3 by filing Appeal No. 20 of 2005 before the School Tribunal at Solapur, under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (for short, ''MEPS Act'). The School Tribunal allowed that appeal by its judgment and order dated 6-1-2006 and set aside the order promoting the petitioner. This petition is filed to challenge the said order of the School Tribunal.2. The connected Writ Petition No. 3403 of 2006 is filed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Ahmednagar, to challenge...
Tag this Judgment!