1
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-02-2010
H.R. Panwar, J.1. All these aforementioned civil second appeals and civil revisions involve identical question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties they are heard and decided together taking the facts of SBCSA No. 139/09 Ram Narayan v. Smt. Asha Devi as a leading case.2. Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these appeals and revisions are that the plaintiff respondent Smt. Asha Devi filed a civil suit against firm Ram Narayan Om Prakash for eviction of the disputed premises after serving notice under Section 106 r/w Section 114(h) of the Transfer of Property Act dated 6.10.2003. The suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.8.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 4, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), against which, one Ram Narayan the appellant herein filed an appeal before Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (for short 'the first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-04-2010
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 203 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 O R D E R 1. The revision petitioner is the respondent/tenant in the RCP No. 45/2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The respondents herein, who are landlords of the revision petitioner, instituted the above petition seeking an order of eviction in respect of the petition schedule building under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As per the pleadings in the petition and by the judgment impugned, it is revealed that a building facing east towards the Chittur Road is owned by the respondents. A portion in the upstairs, which is the petition schedule building was let out to the revision petitioner and he had been occupying the same as a lessee. On the southern side of the petition schedule building and towards the back side, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-26-2010
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed an order dated 26th March, 2008 passed by learned ADJ dismissing an application filed by the petitioners under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree of possession of the premises in question in favour of the petitioner.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner had let out a premises bearing number M-15, Green Park, New Delhi to the respondent by way of a lease deed dated 25th January, 1999 for a period of two years with effect from 1st February 1999. The monthly rent reserved was Rs. 30,000/-.3. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of possession of the premises, permanent injunction and recovery of mesne profits alleging therein, apart from other things, that the lease expired on 31st January, 2001 by efflux of time but the premises in question was not vacated. The defendant (respondent herein) was als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-26-2010
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioners, Mst. Mastura Sultan (who expired after filing of the present petition) and her children have filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 26th May, 1982 passed by the Custodian General of evacuee property dismissing their revision petition under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Evacuee Act, 1950, for short) and upholding the order dated 14th February, 1980 passed by the Assistant Custodian (Judicial), inter alia, holding that the property in their occupation bearing No. 4487/92A/52, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi is an evacuee property. The petitioners have also prayed for declaration that the property in their occupation is not an evacuee property and other incidental relief's.2. In the year 1947, partition of India saw migration of a large number of persons. These migrants left behind moveable and immovable assets, when they migrated to settle down either in India or the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-2010
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner school has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 26th November, 1999 of the Labour Court in a reference of an industrial dispute at the instance of the respondents 1 to 3. The respondents 1 to 3 claimed to be the employees (non-teaching) of the petitioner school and contended that the petitioner was neither issuing them identity cards nor giving them any legal benefits and asking them to render duties under fictitious names and on their refusal to do so, the petitioner school had refused work to them.2. The petitioner contended before the Labour Court that it was a recognized private unaided school within the meaning of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (School Act); that Section 8(3) of the said Act provides the remedy of appeal before the Delhi School Education Tribunal (School Tribunal) to any employee of the school against any order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; that in view of the existence of the specific...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Dec-24-2010
(Circuit Bench Sitting at Delhi) ORDER(No.265/10) S. Usha, Vice-Chairman 1. The appellant in the main appeal has filed a petition to review the order dated 19.03.2010 passed by this Appellate Board. The Registry of this Board has raised the issue as to how this review petition is maintainable in view of the earlier orders of this Board in review petitions. 2. The review petition was filed stating the entire facts of the case and the merits of the appeal. The petitioner also submitted that they had raised various grounds which was not dealt by this Board as well as judgements relied on during the arguments were not considered while passing the order against which the review is preferred. 3. The matter was placed before the Board for deciding the issue of maintainability of the review petition on 24.09.2010. The counsel relied on Rule 23 of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Procedure) Rules, 2003 and submitted that it is prescribed in the rules that the review petition is to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jul-21-2010
1. The appeal impugns judgment and order dated 5.12.1998 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 247 of 1992 by learned Additional District Judge, Amravati which arose from dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 758 of 1988 decided by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati on 19.9.1992.2. The plaintiff Shri Swami Narayan Mandir by Wahiwatdar had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 758 of 1998 for recovery of possession of open plot of land admeasuring 2603 square feet bearing Plot No. 19, Gandhi Chowk, Amravati city. The defendant occupied the plot as a tenant.3. By notice dated 1.4.1988, the plaintiff had terminated tenancy of the defendant and asked the defendant to vacate and pay arrears of rent. The defendant did not comply with the notice. Hence, suit was filed.4. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that, in absence of permission from the Rent Controller, the plaintiff could not have terminated his tenancy. The defendant also contended that the suit plot was leased in favour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-26-2010
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd May, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in a suit for ejectment, recovery of mesne profits and permanent injunction filed by the respondent against the appellant herein.2. The facts as they emerge from the record are that the appellant was inducted as a tenant under the respondent with respect to one big hall, one office room and one WC, all measuring 900 sq. ft. with a common passage on the second floor of property No. F-14/15, Connaught Place, New Delhi of the respondent. The said premises were let out by the respondent to the appellant by an agreement dated 1st December, 1976, whereunder the appellant had agreed to pay rent to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 2,700/- p.m. for the first three years and at the rate of Rs. 3,240/- p.m. for the next two years and at the rate of Rs. 3,780/- p.m. to the respondent after five years of 01.12.1976, i.e., with effect from 01.12.1981.3. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-19-2010
Reported in : 2010(2)KLT180
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 is the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chengannur in the assumed capacity of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chengannur dismissing an application for condoning the delay of 9 days caused in the matter of filing a Rent Control Appeal under Section 18 and the judgment consequently rejecting the appeal as time barred. On considering the revision for admission, this Court directed the Registry to enquire of the learned Subordinate Judge as to whether any notification has been issued notifying the Sub Judge, Chengannur as Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act. The learned Subordinate Judge would inform the Registry that he has not come across any notification notifying the Sub Judge, Chengannur as Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act. He however, referred to the judgment of this Court in Vijayappa Kurup v. Padmanabhan 2009 (2) KLT 939 for justifying the acti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
Decided on : Oct-21-2010
1. The appellant/defendant has directed this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2010 passed by Ist Additional District Judge Harda, in regular civil appeal No.1-A/2010 whereby, upholding the judgment and decree dated 19.7.06 passed by II Civil Judge Class-II Harda in original civil suit No. 417-A/2004, decreeing the suit of the respondents against him for eviction under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, his appeal has been dismissed.2. It is undisputed legal position that the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are not made applicable to town Timarni, District Harda where the disputed premises is situated.3. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that one Madhusudan Agarwal, the father of respondent No.1 to 4, being deaf and dumb person, aged about 80 years, filed the impugned suit for eviction against the appellant through his son and general power of attorney holder, Lavkush Agarwal, contending...
Tag this Judgment!