Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-07-1977
Reported in : AIR1979Raj66; 1977()WLN363
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. These two revisions filed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, are directed against an order of Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated 18-8-1973 holding that the reference applications filed by it under Section 18 oil the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, were not competent inasmuch as it was not 'person interested' within the meaning of Section 18.2. The decision of these revisions must turn on a consideration of Section 18 (1) of the Rajasthan Land AcquisitionAct, 1953, which reads as follows:--'18. Reference to Court. -- (1) The State Government department on whose behalf or the company for which acquisition is being made or any person interested who has not accepted the award or the amendment thereof may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the court whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the amount of costs allowed, the persons to wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-12-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Raj127; 1977()WLN684
Kudal, J. 1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High CourtOrdinance, 1949, is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated May 9, 1977.2. Learned counsel for the respondent-decree-holder has raised preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act), which came into force from Feb. 1, 1977. It was contended that by the Amending Act the definition of 'decree' in Section 2(2) of the Civil P. C. has been amended and the words 'Section 47 or' have been deleted as a result of which any order passed under Section 47 of the Civil P. C. is, therefore, not appealable. It was further contended that the intention of the Amending Act is to shorten the litigation and not to allow it to be prolonged unnecessarily in execution matters. It was further contended that in view of the recent amendment, order passed under Section 47, CPC now does not a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-10-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Raj22; 1977()WLN22
Sen, J.1. The questions for the Division Bench are:-- '(1) Whether the ease reported as AIR 1958 Raj 206 and the view taken in 1971 Raj LW 492 require reconsideration regarding the applicability of Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, on account of the legislative changes brought about by Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963? (2) If so, whether in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property based on title as well as on the assertion of prior possession and subsequent dispossession or discontinuance of possession, Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and not Article 142 thereof applied? The subject-matter in litigation is a house situate at Sardarshahr. It belonged to one Ghanshyamdas who died in 1942, leaving behind his widow Mst Narbada and two minor sons Mangilal and Laduram. The suit is For possession based on dispossession. 2. The plaintiffs sued on the allegation of title in themselves and also alleged that they were in possession but were disposses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-30-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Raj1; 1977()WLN159
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This second appeal in execution proceedings by Maggi Bai is directed against the judgment dated December 9. passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, whereby he set aside the order dated November 12, 1975 passed by the learned Munsiff City, Jodhpur in Execution Case No. 83 of 1975. By the same order he remanded the case back to the learned Munsiff and directed him to enquire as to whether the landlord's case was covered by Section 14 (2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') asamended by the Act No. 14 of 1976. If covered thereunder, he was asked to proceed to execute the decree by delivering the possession to the landlord in accordance with the law but not otherwise. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant is the landlord of a shop situated in Ada Bazar, Jodhpur, rented out by her to Sita Ram--respondent. The appellant Maggi Bai filed a suit for eviction aga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-12-1977
Reported in : AIR1979Raj44; 1977()WLN332
A.P. Sen, AG. C.J.1. This is a reference to the Division Bench for reconsideration of the correctness of the decisions of Jagat Narayan J., in Rajeshwar Dayal v. Padam Kumar Kothari (1969 Raj LW 546) : (AIR 1970 Raj 77) and reiterated by him in Kedarnath v. Pana Devi (1972 WLN 501) 8 (AIR 1973 Raj 24) holding that an application by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint seeking to introduce a new ground of eviction viz., on the ground of default based on Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, be allowed under Section 153 or Order 16, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where such ground arises after the institution of a suit for the eviction of the defendant on one or more of the grounds set forth in Section 13 (1) of the Act, inasmuch as that would be tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to include a cause of action which had not accrued on the date of the suit,2. The parties stand in the relationship of l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-17-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Raj9; 1977()WLN1
ORDERRajindar Sachar, J.1. Whether an amendment made by incorporating Sub-section (3) in Section 14 of Raiasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act hereinafter to be called 'the Act', by means of Ordinance 26 of 1975 as replaced by Amendment Act 14 of 1976 will apply to suits for eviction which had been filed before the coming into force of the said amendment is the question that calls for decision in the present revision petition.2. Section 13 (1) (h) of the Act provides that no court shall pass any decree, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant unless it is satisfied that the premises are required reasonably and bona fide by the landlord for the purposes mentioned therein. This provision applies equally to premises let out for residential as well as commercial or business purposes.3. On 30-3-72 the premises in dispute were let out to the petitioner-tenant. On 7-2-75 the respondent-landlord filed a suit under Section 13 (1)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-07-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Raj180; 1977()WLN74
Sachar, J.1. This special appeal by the tenant-defendant is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated August 26, 1975, affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur, dated September 21, 1974, by which he directed the eviction of the appellant.2. The defendant-appellant is a tenant on a rental of Rs. 425/- per mensem. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the property in dispute from the previous owner on November 7, 1968. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need as well as on the ground that the defendant-appellant was in arrears of rent and was a defaulter. The trial court, by his judgment dated November 21, 1974, decreed the plaintiff's suit and directed the eviction of the appellant. The defendant filed the first appeal before this court. The following points were argued,--(1) That the suit was not maintainable as it was filed against M/s. General Auto Agencies which was not a j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-23-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Raj162; 1978CriLJ1445; 1977WLN(UC)540
Shrimal, J.1. Tersely speaking shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is that on Sept. 6, 1970 Food Inspector Shri V.D. Sharma visited the shop of the petitioner Narain Prasad and found him selling sweet-meats. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity demanded from him a sample of 'Ghewar.' The accused-petitioner refused to take the prescribed notice in the prescribed form No. 6 and also refused to sell him the sample of 'Ghewar'. He was tried for contravening the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Magistrate First Class, Ajmer found the accused guilty under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act and sentenced him to one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 750/- and in default of the payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, vide his judgment dated Nov. 29, 1971.2. Being aggrieved by the judgment of his conviction and sente...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-08-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Raj72
A.P. Sen, J. 1. This writ petition has been referred to a Full Bench at the instance of the State Government because it involves a question as to the validity of the appointment of Shri Raghukul Tilak as Governor of Rajasthan.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the writ petition, shortly stated, are that during the period of Emergency, the petitioner, who holds a substantive rank of a Reader in Political Science in University of Rajasthan, was appointed as Officiating Director, Institute of Correspondence Studies, on Sept. 29, 1975 by the then Vice-Chancellor Dr. G.C. Pande, respondent No. 2. His services were placed on deputation from the Department of Political Science and in due course the post was advertised. On the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose, which was duly approved by the Syndicate, the petitioner was appointed as Director, Institute of Correspondence Studies, on probation, for a period of one year in the pay-scale of Professor in the U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-10-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Raj229
Sachar, J.1. This petition has been filed against the judgment of the Board of Revenue against the proceedings under ceiling law which were started against one Smt. Chandrakanta under Chapter III-B added to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be called the 'old law').2. The land was originally recorded in the name of one Smt. Gulab Bai, who had adopted Govindlal, son of petitioner No. 1. After the death of Smt. Gulab Bai, the land was recorded in the name of Govindlal and after his death, in the name of Smt. Chandrakanta, who was recorded as the Khatedar tenant. Since she was holding the land in excess of the ceiling area, notices were issued to her and the present petitioners joined the proceedings and claimed one-fourth share in favour of each of the three petitioners and one-fourth share in favour of Bam Narain, another son of Kesharilal. An effort was made before the authorities to contend that the petitioners were in possession of the land since 1957 on the basis of on...
Tag this Judgment!