Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: karnataka rent control act 2001 section 33 notice of creation and termination of sub tenancy Court: andhra pradesh Page 1 of about 36 results (0.338 seconds)

Soma Ramamohan Reddy Vs. Soma Saraswathi

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(1)ALT484

..... however a learned judge of this court in the light of the view expressed by the apex court in decision (2) supra in relation to the provisions of the karnataka rent control act, in subsequent decision in (1) supra had arrived at a conclusion, where a suit was filed in gujarat state for declaration that there was no marriage between the plaintiff ..... nadar : air1973mad476 in this regard may be usefully referred to while deciding the applicability of section 10 of the code. in relation to a pending suit and a pending rent control proceeding, this court had negatived the relief in g. bhavani sankar v. b. rajeswara rao 1996 (6) alt 374 and also in yet another decision in m. ..... cases, the decisions in p.p. gupta v. east asiatic co. : air1960all184 , anandan gupta v. navin agarwal : air1984all387 and venkatesha prabhu v. thejappa air 1982 karnataka 319 may be referred to. no doubt contra view was expressed in mugli v. khaliq dar air 1979 jammu and kashmir 84.10. be that as it may this is .....

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Rep. by Its Commissioner Vs. Philom ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2008(2)ALD1; 2008(1)ALT670

..... small cause courts act and that a finding of fact based on oral evidence should not ordinarily be set aside by an appellate court save and except for strong ..... act.52. now the other judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel sri s. satyanarayana prasad. in h. seshadri v. k.r. natarajan : [2003]3scr505 : 2003 (5) alt 28.1 (dn sc), the supreme court held that the high court had limited jurisdiction under section 50(1) of the karnataka rent control act and section 18 of the karnataka ..... interlocutory mandatory injunction ultimately rested in the discretion of the court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. in karnataka rare earth v. senior geologist, department of mines & geology : (2004)2scc783 , the supreme court held that the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit was applicable .....

Satish Chandra Makan Vs. Dr. S.V.S. Sastry and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(1)ALD145

..... ....it was submitted that with the passage of time and change of circumstances, the continued operation of an act, which was valid, when enacted may become invalid as being arbitrary and unreasonable. though the karnataka rent control act was enacted in the year 1961 and was to lapse by the end of 10 years' time, it ..... has been extended from time to time in the same form in which it was enacted originally or with some modification wherever it was necessary. we cannot imagine that the legislature was not aware or conscious of the fact as to the rents ..... dated 29-12-1983 issued by the state of andhra pradesh while exercising its powers under section 26 of the andhra pradesh buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960 (for short 'the rent control act') has become illusory, quite arbitrary and unreasonable with the passage of time and held that in view of the decision reported in m. .....

Bhupendra N. Patel and Others Vs. Harshavardhan Chokkani

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1999(4)ALD467; 1999(4)ALT642

..... purpose.6. in m/s. bhoolchand's case (supra), the supreme court was considering the revisional jurisdiction of the high court under section 50 of the karnataka rent control act, 1961. para 6 is extracted below :'the power of revision is not narrow as in section 115 cpc, but wider requiring the high court to examine the ..... credibility of witnesses, there being a conflict of oral evidence of the parties.'section 50 of karnataka rent control act, 1961 confers power of revision as it confers said power under section 22 under the a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, the phrase 'for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or correctness of ..... . the supreme court in rukmini amma's case (supra) comparing the revisional jurisdiction of the high court under section 20 of kerala (buildings, lease and rent) control act, and also section 115 of the code of civil procedure held that section 20 gives power to the revisional authority to call for and examine the recordrelating .....

Naveenchand and Another Vs. Nagarjuna Travels and Hotels (P) Ltd., Bas ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2000(4)ALD293; 2000(4)ALT56

..... lis lordship k. jagannatha shetty, j., (as he then was) considered the effect of tenant surrendering part of premises and fixation of rent at rs.450/- whether attracts application of section 21 of karnataka rent control act and held as follows:'.....the court of general jurisdiction may be competent to make an order or decree for possession so long as part ..... v of the act is not applicable to the subject matter of the suit. if during the pendency of the suit, due to act of parties or by operation ..... dated 26-2-1999: 1. whether this court is having jurisdiction to try the suit in view of plea raised by the defendant vide a.p. buildings (lease, rent & eviction) control act? 2. to what relief? 8. the defendants, in the present suit os no.778 of 1996, also filed os no.461 of 1998 against the plaintiff herein .....

Harishchandra Vidyarthi Vs. Meenakshi Shah and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2001(2)ALD95; 2001(2)ALT206

..... etc., or demolition and reconstruction. therefore, the interplay between section 12(l)(h) and 21(1)(j) of karnataka rent control act, as interpreted by the supreme court, may not apply while interpreting the provisions of the a.p. rent control act. 21. having regard to the legal provisions and the relevant case law, the following principles emerge : (1) ..... in m/s. modern tailoring hall v. h.s. venkusa, : [1997]3scr984 , under karnataka rent control act, 1986 is relied on by sri p.r. prasad. as can be gathered from the reported judgment, section 21(1)(h) of karnataka act confers on the landlord a right to claim eviction of building for the purpose of bona fide ..... the a.p. (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960 confers on the landlord the right to seek eviction of a tenant from the .....

E.V. Jagannadha Rao and ors. Vs. L.S. Eswara Rao and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2002(1)ALD845; 2002(1)ALT532

..... only premature but the decree passed therein was without jurisdiction. 18. in narayana gowda v. krishna madyastha, : air1976kant56 , the high court of karnataka held: under section 48(6) of the rent control act, it is not open to the executing court to question the validity of the order of eviction passed against the judgment-debtor. the section, ..... inasmuch as he was in possession as tenant of the premises under the plaintiffs, he would be entitled to protection afforded by the madras building (lease, rent control) act and that therefore no effective decree for delivery of possession could be passed in the case. the court observed that the second defendant could resist pleading his ..... undivided share of the entire property and not with reference to any 'building' or part of 'building' within the meaning of the madras buildings (lease and rent control) act. 24. the above case is clearly distinguishable. it was held in that case that it was not a case of letting out the building, but only an .....

Ramvilas Bajaj Vs. Ashok Kumar and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(4)ALD137; 2007(4)ALT348; AIR2007NOC2064(FB)(AP)

..... any court or other authority in favour of the landlord against the tenant. the prohibition, in section 21(1) of the karnataka rent control act, was against the making of an order or decree for recovery of possession and not for the execution of a decree as is prescribed in section 10(1) of ..... 's suit for recovery of possession was decreed and the revision and review petitions filed by the tenants were dismissed by the high court of karnataka. the supreme court construing section 21(1) of the karnataka rent control act which prohibited passing of any order or decree for recovery of possession by any court or other authority in favour of the landlord as having ..... of 1960, not to its execution.42. in h. shiva rao's case (supra), section 21(1) of the karnataka rent control act provided that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by .....

S.Lachman Singh Vs. S. Satnam Singh

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... i also noticed the decision of the division bench of karnataka high court in smt. lakshamma and others v. b.p. tirumala setty and others reported in ilr 2005 karnataka 5599 wherein their lordships considered similar provisions under the karnataka rent control act whereby special category landlords are conferred with similar right ..... of immediate possession under section 31 thereof. the division bench compared the general provisions under the act with the special provisions for specified ..... all its relevance." ii) in another decision in j. chatterjee v. mohinder kaur uppal and another5, section 14-d of the delhi rent control act again fell for consideration and their lordships have discussed the legislative intent in para 11 which is extracted as hereunder: "from the aforementioned .....

D. Krishna Rao and anr. Vs. K.V. Nayak and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1996(3)ALT825

..... that case, the supreme court held that the subsequent plea 11. : air1996sc268 . requiring investigation of fact cannot be entertained in revision petition. that was a case under karnataka rent control act. the original plea of the landlady there was that she required the premises for her own residence. the landlady died during the pendency of the proceedings and the son ..... fact, the supreme court has held in that case that the powers of the high court under section 15 (6) of the haryana rent control act which is analogous to section 22 of the act are wider than the powers under section 115 cpc. in view of the above, the conclusion of the appellate court that the petitioners' ..... during pendency of c.r.p., the landlord is not barred under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act from claiming eviction. further, though the subsequent event has to be taken into consideration by the rent controller or the appellate court or revision court and evidence can be taken in that regard, it does not follow that .....