Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-24-1977
Reported in : AIR1978HP51
T.U. Mehta, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi Camp at Dharamsala in a land reference No. 50 of 1971 made to him under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. By his order under appeal the learned Additional District Judge has apportioned the compensation for acquisition of the land in dispute between the present appellant and the respondent on the basis that the respondent is a non-occupancy tenant over the acquired land. The appellant claims that the respondent is not holding any non-occupancy tenancy right in the land and the whole of the compensation should have been awarded to him without any apportionment. The office took objection as regard the court-fee paid by the appellant in this appeal. The appellant has paid Court-fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 13 (hi) of the Second Schedule attached to the Hima-chal Pradesh Court Fees Act, 8 of 1958. The office objection is that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-28-1977
Reported in : AIR1978HP2
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The appellants above named have preferred this appeal against the decision given by the court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Sirmur District in suit No. 137/1 of 1970 on his file dismissing the appellants' suit for possession of the suit premises and eviction of the respondent-defendants therefrom. The suit is with reference to the premises known as old Khalsa Hotel situated on the Mall, Solan bearing Municipal Nos 71/2 and 71/3. The respondents herein are the heirs and legal representatives of late Sardar Kartar Singh who was occupying the suit premises having initially taken them on lease.2. The record of the case shows that the deceased Kartar Singh originally executed rent note Ex. P-15 in favour of one Lala Ram Chander, father of the plaintiffs, on 19-10-1935. That rent note was for a fixed period of two years. Reference to the rent note shows that Kartar Singh has executed this rent note as proprietor of 'Pratap Khalsa Hotel' i. e. in his personal capacity. The record ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-19-1977
Reported in : AIR1978HP36
R.S. Pathak, C.J. 1. This and the connected appeal have been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the award of the learned District Judge, Mahasu, in two references made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. The Himachal Pradesh Government issued two notifications in October 1967 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act declaring that land in the villages of Shahdhar and Maihgaon in Tehsil of Rampur, District Mahasu was needed, for the purpose of widening the Sarahan-Daranghati road. The two parcels of land belonged to the respondent, Rajkumar Rajinder Singh. Thereafter, on following the further procedure detailed in the land Act the Collector made an award determining the compensation payable to the respondent at Rs. 1,437.50 in respect of the land invillage Shahdhar and Rs. 2,831.87 for the land in village Majhgaon. In both cases, the compensation included 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The Collector made an order that the compensation so determined ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-28-1977
Reported in : AIR1978HP30
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment.2. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the premises mentioned in the plaint were let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 18.00 per mensem in the year 1973. On April 16, 1973, the landlord served a notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. Because of his refusal to leave, the plaintiff filed the suit. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground, inter alia, that the notice terminating his tenancy was invalid. The trial court decreed the suit, and an appeal by the defendant has been dismissed by the learned District Judge. And now this second appeal.3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the notice terminating the tenancy is invalid because the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act require that the notice period should terminate with the month of the tenancy, and in this case, it is said, the tenancy month closed on the 8th May ...
Tag this Judgment!