Court : Delhi
Reported in : 24(1983)DLT355
..... in para 5 of the notice. (2) on 18-4-1972 the respondent landlady filed the present eviction application under section 14(1)(b) of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (herein the act) against the appellants on the ground that they had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises in favor of m/s. bralco metal ..... juristic person and have delivered possession to the other two companies which are also juristic person. an appeal was taken against the order of the addl. controller. it was dismissed by the rent control tribunal on 9-3-1983. hence, this second appeal. (4) the substantial point of law agitated is that the application for eviction is liable ..... lesser. but it has not been possible for the appellants to dislodge their admissions that they were the tenants and were paying rent. the appellants are, thereforee, tenants within section 2(1) of the act in spite of the said agreement. the aggarwals needed no more to be made parties to the application. in that view of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1998)119PLR14
..... , the case is not covered by the provisions of delhi rent control act, the rent of the premises being over 3500/- per month.21. in view of the foregoing, we are of the confirmed view that the finding of the learned additional district judge ..... , 1985 rlr 509 is concerned, we may not advert to it for two reasons. firstly, it related to rule 22 of the delhi rent control rules for service of notice to be served as per requirements of the delhi rent control act and not in respect of a notice to be served in terms of clause (f) and (g) of the aforesaid agreement. secondly ..... same on 11th january 1996 and requested the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property. since the rent was more than 3,500 per month, the premises were not covered by the delhi rent control act. after the expiry of 31st december 1993, the defendant/appellant did not have any right to remain in the possession of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1988Delhi103
..... other officer/employee of the company, had no adverse effect on the aforesaid statutory right of the company unless and until evicted under the statutory provisions of the delhi rent control act, 1958, and that right of the company, when sought to be interfered with by the landlady, can be protected by the grant of an injuction, biswabani ..... gain-saying the fact that statutory tenant is entitled to remain in possession of the tenanted premises until evicted under the relevant provisions of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (in short the act). the suit is based not on the contract of lease but has been brought for protecting the company's statutory estate in the demised ..... challenged by the plaintiffs as unenforceable in law and the landlady can evict the company which is now the statutory tenant, only under the provision of the delhi rent control act, 1958 but is not entitled to obstruct the company in the fashion resorted to by her. the aforesaid co nant in the lease-deed is also assailed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003VIIAD(Delhi)284; 104(2003)DLT1018
..... 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 that the increase of rs ..... the observations of the additional rent controller that the enhancement of rent by increasing the rent from rs. 3,128/- to rs. 3,150/- cannot be accepted as rent as per the act.6. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.7. by way of amendment of the delhi rent control act, section 6a as introduced on ..... to the petitioner. the petitioner by notice dated 16th april, 1992 demanded the arrears of rent from the respondent.3. an eviction petition was filed by the petitioner against the respondent under section 14(1)(a) and (b) of the delhi rent control act.4. the petition under section 14(1)(b) was dismissed. however, the petition under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1989Delhi173; 1989RLR186
..... about the existence of any super structures at the time of the tenancy, or about the property being in the nature of 'premises', as defined by the delhi rent control act and as now asserted. (26) having regard to these inherent inconsistencies in appellant's stand, it is not possible to attach any credence to his oral evidence ..... generally intended for use as a working or dwelling place'.(20) it is thus clear that the property in order to be 'premises' within the contemplation of delhi rent control act has to be in the nature of a roofed structure, or containing such structures thereon. any property which is described as a vacant plot simpliciter, in the ..... at the time of letting, namely, there were super structures on the plot, which converted the nature of the property into 'premises'. within the. meaning of delhi rent control act. (10) he further contended that the real question before the court was as to what was the character of the property at the time of inception of tenancy .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 40(1990)DLT82; 1990RLR95
..... . 1 and 2 and inasmuch as the defendant has failed to prove his tenancy in respect of the disputed property section 50 of the delhi rent control act and section 19 of the slum areas (improvement and clearance) act have no application in the instant case. we, thereforee, agree with the finding of the learned trial judge on this issue. issue no ..... to the defendant for residential and commercial purposes and he is a tenant thereof the suit is barred under section 50 of the delhi rent control act. 1958 and section 19 of the slum areas (improvement and clearance) act, 1956; as the previous owners had no right to dispose of joint hindu family coparcenary property the alleged sale deeds in favor ..... .1 does not bear the revenue stamp and there is no explanationn for that. also there is no explanationn as to why rent for one year in advance should have been paid which is contrary to the provisions of the delhi rent control act, 1958. (sec. 5(2)(b)). (2) pw. 5, dw. i and dw. 4 have stated that during .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1994Delhi112; 51(1993)DLT334; 1993(27)DRJ144
..... deal with procedure for assessing any property. section 67a was inserted .w.e.f. 1 april 1988. (10) after the amendments to the delhi rent control act, dmc act and pm act as applicable to delhi, the municipal authorities, namely, mcd and ndmc, issued notices for revision of rateable value, or annual value, as the case may be, ..... anddr.balbirsingh'scase : [1985]152itr388(sc) . (2) all these challenges, in effect, have been made to contend that amendment made in 1988 to the delhi rent control act has no bearing for arriving at the rateable value/ annual value of the properties as he thertofore done and principles laid down by the two judgments of the supreme ..... with respect to any land or building the standard rent of which has been fixed under the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, rateable value thereof shall not exceed the annual amount of the standard rent so fixed. the necessary consequence of the amendment of the delhi rent control act would prima facie be that the premises which are .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1995IAD(Delhi)239; AIR1995Delhi154; 1995(32)DRJ41
..... (1)(e), 14(1)(b), 14(1)(c), 14(1)(j), 14(1)(d), 14(1)(h) and 14(1)(a) of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as .the 'act'). the case of the defendant is that institution of this petition was with ulterior motive and was without sufficient grounds. the defendant knew and was aware ..... and deliberately accumulated them so as to somehow or the other manoeuvre to create three consecutive monthly defaults in the payment of rent by the plaintiff and institute petition for default under the provisions of the delhi rent control act. (3) the plaintiff, for these reasons, had claimed damages of rs. 3,10,000.00 from the defendant but ..... and deliberately accumulated them so as to somehow or the other manoeuvre to create three consecutive monthly defaults in the payment of rent by the plaintiff and institute petition for default under the provisions of the delhi rent control act. (4) the plaintiff, for these reasons, had claimed damages of rs. 3,10,000.00 from the defendant but .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 113(2004)DLT788; 2004(77)DRJ82
..... it was held that since the tenant himself had sub-let a part of demised premises @ rs. 24701/- per month the case is not covered under the provisions of delhi rent control act. a.k. sikri, j. repelled the contention of the defendant that the decree under order 12 rule 6, cpc should not be passed as the resolution authorising plaintiff's ..... .2001 which is in excess of rs. 3500/-, the provisions of delhi rent control act cease to be applicable to the demised premises. the plaintiff/petitioner then terminated the tenancy of the defendants vide separate legal notice dated 8.10.2001 duly ..... notice on the defendant under section 6-a read with section 8 of delhi rent control act (for short the 'act') notifying thereby that the rent will be increased by 10% with effect from 1.9.2001. the said legal notice was duly served on the defendants/respondents. since the monthly rent of the demised premises becomes rs. 3659/- with effect from 1.9 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 121(2005)DLT65
..... the applicants have made out a case which entitles them to get an order for recovery of possession of the premises even if the yardsticks contained in the delhi rent control act are applied.26. at this stage, i may also add that when the company court is convinced that the premises would not be required by the company ..... against the company.'19. while laying down this test, the full bench not only examined the issue in the context of the p.p. act but specifically referred to the delhi rent control act as well and held that for recovery of possession or recovery of damages proceedings can be appropriately determined by the winding up courts.20. the ..... protection and eviction of a tenant can be only by invoking the provision of such a special statute. in the instant case, this legislation is delhi rent control act. the ex-management has, thereforee, opposed the applications, challenging the maintainability. it is submitted that the landlord can evict a tenant only under the provisions of the .....
Tag this Judgment!