Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-12-2008
Reported in : 2009(4)KarLJ105; 2009(2)KCCR991; 2009(2)AIRKarR76; AIR2009NOC1284(D.B)
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Appellant was the defendant and Respondent was the plaintiff In O.S. No. 4747/2000 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore City. Suit filed by the respondent for decree of ejectment and for damage manse profits against the appellant having been decreed by Trial Court on 04.04.2007, this appeal is filed questioning the same. For convenience, parties will be referred to hereinafter with reference to their rank in the suit.2. The preface of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paras 2 and 3 in the decision of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amritlal and Co., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 397, is apt to be noticed in this appeal by a Public Sector Bank - appellant, to consider the point raised by it for our decision. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:2. It is unfortunate, an eviction petition which was filed on 13.9.1985 still the parties are battling to find which court would have the jurisdiction. Whether the Court of Rent Controller under the Delhi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-16-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC3148; 2008(3)ALD147(SC); 2008(56)BLJR1811; 148(2008)DLT705(SC); JT2008(5)SC376; 2008(6)SCALE325; (2008)5SCC287; 2008(3)ICC326; 2008(3)Supreme37; 2008AIRSCW3324; 2008AIRSCW3324; 2008(3)ICC326; 2008(3)Supreme37
..... rent control laws. moreover, the constitution (seventy-fifth amendment) act, 1994 was passed to enable the state governments to set up state-level rent tribunals for speedy disposal of rent cases by excluding the jurisdiction of all courts except the supreme court.3. in the light of the representations and developments referred to above, it has been decided to amend the rent control law prevailing in delhi. as the amendments are extensive and substantial in nature, instead of making changes in the delhi rent control act, 1958, it is proposed to repeal and replace the said act ..... g.s. singhvi, j.1. whether section 14(1)(e) of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (for short 'the 1958 act') is ultra vires the doctrine of equality enshrined in article 14 of the constitution of india is the question which arises for determination in these appeals. 2. for the sake of convenience, we have noted the facts from civil appeal no. 1897 of 2003:(i) on august 18, 1953, delhi improvement trust leased out a plot of land measuring 184 sq ..... landlord should not have in his or her possession any other reasonably suitable accommodation. this does not violate either article 14 or article 21 of the constitution.38. in view of the above discussion, we hold that section 14(1)(e) of the 1958 act is violative of the doctrine of equality embodied in article 14 of the constitution of india insofar as it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes when the same are required .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-04-2008
Reported in : 155(2008)DLT440
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A lease deed was executed on 24.10.1996 by Smt. Shakun Vohra, the owner in favour of Ms. Rohini Varshnei as tenant (appellant herein) in respect of second floor of House No. G-72, 2nd Floor, Masjid Moth, Residential Scheme, New Delhi consisting of two rooms with one attached bathroom, kitchen, covered verandah, open terrace and servant's bathroom. The lease provided for a rent of Rs. 3,500/-per month for the premises and the fittings and fixtures. The tenant was also liable to pay Rs. 50/- as water charges and electricity charges had to be paid according to the bills received from the authorities.2. Smt. Shakun Vohra executed a registered sale deed dated 21.11.2001 in favour of Sh. R.B. Singh (respondent herein) in respect of the said second floor with terrace rights along with undivided, impartible and individual share in the plot measuring 180 square metres.3. The respondent served a notice through Counsel on the appellant dated 09.05.2002 informing her about...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-30-2008
Reported in : 2008(105)DRJ358
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The appellant, which is a private limited company, is the owner and landlord of property bearing No. 54, Janpath, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The respondent herein, namely, Bank of India, was inducted as a tenant initially on 21.4.1962 in respect of the basement and ground floor of the suit property. Further portions of the property were also let out to the respondent in stages. Particulars of all the leases and the portions let out thereby are as under:S. No. Particulars Terms of Lease Portions let outof Lease1. Lease deed 25 years with effect 3100 sq.ft on the ground dated 21.4.62 from 12.5.1961 with a floor and 3100 sq.ft inclause for renewal the basement @ Rs.3,833/- p.m.2. Lease deed 10 years with effect 1200 sq.ft. on the back portiondated 9.5.68 from 18.4.1966 of the first floor @ Rs.2,700/- p.m.3. Oral Lease W.e.f. 20.2.1970 Front portion of the first floor@ Rs.2,700/- p.m.4. Oral Lease - 500 sq.ft. on the first floor@ Rs.1,125/-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-03-2008
Reported in : 154(2008)DLT211; 2008(106)DRJ705
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd November, 2007 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby an application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.2. The brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent filed an Eviction Petition alleging that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of premises at Rs. 500/- per month including water and electricity charges. This tenancy was from month-to-month. The petitioner stopped paying rent to the respondent from January, 1989. The respondent then sent a legal notice dated 17.10.2000 claiming arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy of the petitioner.3. This notice was duly replied by the petitioner vide reply dated 9th November, 2006 wherein petitioner denied the title of the respondent over the suit property and set up a title in himself and his wife. After this denial of title by the petitioner herein, the respondent filed a suit for possession of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-22-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Delhi1; 2008(106)DRJ365
Hima Kohli, J.1. By this order the Court proposes to dispose of an application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, whereunder the defendant has sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff cannot file any proceedings seeking to hold the suit property after expiry of the lease period i.e. after 31.12.2006 and that as the lease agreement is an unregistered document, and is hit by the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short `the Stamp Act'), the suit is barred by law.2. A brief reference to the facts of the case is necessary before dealing with the present application. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant praying inter alia for the following reliefs:(a) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men or agents, and all other persons acting on its behalf from preventing and/ or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment and possession of the suit schedule property situated at Plo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-18-2008
Reported in : AIR2008Bom130; 2008(2)ALLMR550; 2008(3)BomCR154; 2008(3)MhLj195
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Deopujari, learned Counsel for the appellants. Nobody has appeared for respondents on 10th, 14th & 15th January & thereafter today.2. By this Second Appeal, the widowed daughter-in-law has challenged the judgment and decree concurrently passed against her, ordering her eviction from house property having Corporation House No. 176/0+1 situated in old Ward No. 44, Jagnath Road, Teen Nal Chowk, Nagpur. Regular Civil Suit No. 1325 of 1978 filed for eviction from that house by her father-in-law and his brother came to be decreed on 30.8.1984 after holding that the present appellant had taken forcible possession of part of it and licence to occupy its remaining part was duly terminated. The widow then filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 584 of 1984 and said appeal came to be dismissed on 30.1.1989 by 8th Additional District Judge, Nagpur. The appellate Court also found that though widow was claiming right to occupy that house by contending that her father-in-la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-06-2008
Reported in : 154(2008)DLT473; 2008(106)DRJ852
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 8th January, 2007 whereby he set aside the judgment of ARC dated 27th May, 2004 and allowed the Eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act.2.The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of premises No. 13/39, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh. The respondent found that the premises was in occupation of M/s. Letheria (an undertaking of Punjab Government) and the petitioner had sub-let/parted with the possession of premises to M/s. Letheria without obtaining consent in writing of the landlord. A petition under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act was preferred. The landlord also got a Local Commissioner appointed for inspection of the property, immediately on filing the Eviction Petition. The Local Commissioner appointed by the Court inspected the premises and filed his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-10-2008
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR1292; 2008(3)CTC97; [2008(3)JCR176(SC)]; JT2008(5)SC1; (2008)3MLJ1105(SC); 2008(5)SCALE1; (2008)6SCC1; 2008AIRSCW2899; 2008(3)Supreme331; 2008(2)LH(SC)1534
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Reservation for admission in educational institutions or for public employment has been a matter of challenge in various litigations in this Court as well as in the High Courts. Diverse opinions have been expressed in regard to the need for reservation. Though several grounds have been raised to oppose any form of reservation, few in independent India have voiced disagreement with the proposition that the disadvantaged sections of the population deserve and need 'special help'. But there has been considerable disagreement as to which category of disadvantaged sections deserve such help, about the form this help ought to take and about the efficacy and propriety of what the government has done in this regard. 2. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who presided over the Congress Expert Committee emphasized before the Constituent Assembly that the removal of socio-economic inequalities was the highest priority. He believed that only this could make India a casteless and cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-26-2008
Reported in : 2008(111)BomLR250; 2009(1)MhLj666
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.2. Heard finally with consent of parties.3. This Second Appeal is by defendant against whom a decree was passed by the trial Court for ejectment which was confirmed by the Additional District Judge.4. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:Respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the suit plot described in the plaint. Defendant is said to be a monthly tenant. The tenancy commences on the first day of each calender month and ends on the last day of the month. The plaintiff issued a notice of termination of tenancy of the defendant on 03.08.1993 calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit plot at the end of the month of March 1993. The defendant failed to do so, hence the suit5. Defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. The defendant mainly contended that the suit plot is governed by the provisions of C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order. Plaintiff therefore had no right to terminate the tenancy of the def...
Tag this Judgment!