Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: delhi rent control act 1958 repealed section 56 power to make rules Page 9 of about 15,771 results (1.257 seconds)

Sitam Ram Vs. Jai Baboo

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 9(1973)DLT491; 1973RLR509

..... these reasons, we are in agreement with the view taken in vas dev. vs. sohan singh and others (1968) d.l.t. 492. (12) the same position obtains under the delhi rent control act, 1958. section 14 of this act also uses the expression 'order or decree' but section 42 provides that save as provided by section 41 (which relates to power of the ..... had ceased to exist and, thereforee, the decree was inexecutable. (2) in a suit for eviction filed by the respondent (hereafter called 'the landlord') under the delhi and ajmer rent control act. 1952 (hereafter called 'the 1952 act') for eviction of the appellant (hereafter called 'the tenant') on the ground that the premises were required by him bona fide, the trial court on december 21 .....

Dipak Basu Vs. Loch Lomond Lodge (P) Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1981Cal428

..... supreme court noted its earlier decision in v. k. verma v. radhey shyam reported in : air1964sc1317 where it had construed section 13(5) of the earlier delhi rent control act 1952. this section provided that on the failure of a tenant to deposit the arrears of sent within the prescribed time, the court 'shall order the defence ..... on a decision of the supreme court in miss santosh mehta v. om parkash, reported in : [1980]3scr325 where the supreme court construed station 15 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 which provides as follows (para 2) :''if a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as required by this section, thecontroller may order the defence against ..... delay in making its application be condoned and that the delay in payment of rents deposited with the rent controller be also condoned and the same be treated as deposits within the meaning of section 17 (1) of the west bengal premises tenancy act, 1956. in the alternative, the delay in depositing the amounts after the prescribed .....

B.S. Adityan and ors. Vs. Fencing Association of India, Jabalpur and o ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1991MP316; 1991(0)MPLJ418

..... bench of the said high court under clause 10 of the letters patent. the question arose for consideration whether in view of ssections 39 and 43 of delhi rent control act, appeal before the division bench was maintainable under clause 10 of letters patent against a judgment passed by the learned single judge in second appeal. while ..... 1442, their lordships had an occasion to examine the maintainability of the letters patent appeal, in view of the provisions contained in ssections 39 and 43 of delhi rent control act. the facts in brief were that the respondents of that case had leased out a plot to the appellants of that case. the respondents filed an application ..... bar contained in sub-section (2) of section 39 and the provision of section 43 of the delhi rent control act, their lordships took the view that the expression 'final' prima facie connotes that an order passed on appeal under the act is conclusive and no further appeal lies against it. since, the section imposes a total bar, their .....

Arun Sharma Vs. Usha Sunderam

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... to in shri kishan @ krishan kumar (supra). similarly, in m/s ambalal sarabhai enterprises ltd. (supra), the apex court, while considering the provisions of delhi rent control act, had granted the landlord the right to choose one of the remedies by holding that the tenant's protective umbrella could not be enlarged to the vested rights ..... of the landlord but the landlord's rights under the repealed rent act would save the pending proceedings before the rent controller. similarly, the binding provisions of the full bench of this court in sawan ram (supra) case stand diluted in view of the three ..... was filed by specifically pleading in para no.16 that the said premises did not fall under the urban area and the provisions of haryana urban (control of rent and eviction) act, 1973 was not applicable to the leased premises and the same were governed by the general law of land. written statement was filed that there was .....

Benoy Bhusan Dasgupta Vs. Sm. Sabitri Banerjee

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1977Cal199,(1977)1CompLJ175(Cal),82CWN252

..... appeals were heard analogously by the supreme court wherein a common question with respect to the application of the first proviso to section 57(2) of the delhi rent control act, 1958, came up for consideration and the said provision is in the following terms;section 57(2): notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the ..... concernedi to remove those unauthorised structures. since the tenant did not do so, the suit was filed by the landlord under section 13(1)(k) of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952.12. in the other appeal, being appeal no. 121 of 1963, also the facts were similar and the suit was filed on the basis of ..... a tenant in putting down a door contrary to the provisions of section 108(o) of the transfer of property act would attract the proviso to section 12(d) of the rent control act, 1950. that apart, mr. bakshi relied on the dictionary meaning of the word 'damage' in support of the contentions as referred to hereinbefore. 'damages' according .....

Ghatge Patil Transport Limited, Kolhapur Vs. State of Karnataka and an ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2002KAR2088; 2002(2)KarLJ292

..... force by a notification dated 5-12-2001.5. section 70 of the rent act repeals the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (karnataka act no. 22 of 1961), section 70 of the rent act reads as follows.--'70. repeal and savings.--(1) the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (karnataka act no. 22 of 1961) is hereby repealed.(2) notwithstanding such repeal and ..... the validity of section 2(7)(bb)(iii) and (iv) and the explanation given thereto of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 since the karnataka rent control act, 1961 has been repealed with the introduction of the karnataka rent act, 1999 which has come into force on 5-12-2001.9. in these circumstances, we decline to entertain ..... trust. however, all the appellants challenge the constitutional validity of section 2(7)(b)(iii) and (iv) and the explanation thereto of the karnataka rent control act, 1961.2. the learned single judge by an order dated 17th of december, 1997 disposed of a batch of writ petitions upholding the constitutional validity of .....

Muni Lal Vohra and anr. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 13(1977)DLT323

..... in respect of any land or building 'the standard rent of which has been fixed under the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 (38 of 1952), the rateable value thereof shall not exceed the annual amount of the standard rent so fixed.'the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, has been replaced by the delhi rent control act, 1958. it may be stated here that in ..... not maintainable, and that the claim of the respondent mohd. usman, could not be entertained in view of the provisions of section 7(2) of the delhi rent control act. the learned chief justice dealt with those two contentions and repelled the same. the learned chief justice did not express any opinion on the third contention as ..... overriding effect. the learned chief justice added that apart from the above, he was of the view that the provisions of section 7(2) of the delhi rent control act were not attracted to the case before him as the said provisions dealt with tax on building or land imposed in respect of premises occupied by the .....

Bhim SaIn Vs. Raj Devi

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1973RLR627

..... . (2) the respondent landlady on april 17, 1965 filed an application under clause (g) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (hereinafter called the act) on the ground that the premises in dispute were required bonafide by the landlady for the purpose of re-building and such re-building could not be carried ..... objection was taken by the tenant that the second suit was barred on the principle of rest judicata because this ground of section 13(1)(k) of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, was not included when the previous suit was filed. in answer to that it is contended on behalf of the landlord that he could not have ..... in a manner contrary to the conditions imposed by the landlord. previous to that a suit had been filed under section 9(1)(b)(1) of the delhi and ajmer (mewar) rent control act 1947, on the ground that the premises were leased to the tenant for residential purpose and that he had used them for another purpose by using them .....

Ms. Rohini Varshnei Vs. R.B. Singh

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 155(2008)DLT440

..... sections 6a and 8 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 is admitted. the increase of 10% in the last paid rent makes it rs. 3,850 per month which excludes applicability of the delhi rent control act, 1958 to the suit premises. in other words, the defendants cannot claim any protection of the delhi rent control act when the rent is beyond rs. 3,500 ..... has been replied to by the respondent. the only real defence raised in the written statement is the protection under delhi rent control act, 1958 ('the said act' for short) on account of the fact that the rent was rs. 3,500/- per month and thus the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred as per the ..... the tenant lost the protection of the delhi rent control act. section 6a and section 8 reads as under:6-a. 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 .....

George Thomas Vs. Shri.T.N.Menon and ors.

Court : Kerala

..... 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 ..... respondents, the learned counsel submitted that he was not pressing the claim for eviction under section 11 (4)(iv) of the act. it was duly endorsed on the petition on 3/6/2008. the rent control court, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a finding that the respondents are entitled to an order of eviction under section ..... is to be demolished, for which the revision petitioner is to be evicted. with these pleadings, the respondents approached the rent control court seeking order of eviction under section 11(3) and 11 (4)(iv) of the act. 2. the revision petitioner in his objection contended that he is doing business in electrical and electronics goods in the .....