Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1987Kant186; ILR1987KAR1286; 1987(2)KarLJ9
Prem Chand Jain, C.J.1. The following two questions have been referred to be decided by a larger Bench: -'(1) Whether a revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies to the High Court from a revisional order made by a District Judge under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, as substituted by Karnataka Act 31 of 1975?(2) Whether the ruling of the Full Bench of this Court in Krishnaji Venkatesh Shirodkar v. Gurupad Shivram Kavalekar (ILR (1978) 2 Karnataka 1585) requires reconsideration in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad : [1980]3SCR32 ?'2. This petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution calling in question the legality of the order made by the District Judge under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). An office objection was raised as to how in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Krishnaji Venkatesh Shi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE18H DAY OF FEBRUARY201529TH MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 3023 of 2015 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------- OFFICERS' CLUB, AGED62YEARS, TRIVANDRUM, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM - 03 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT(REVENUE) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 001.2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUSHEELA R. BHATT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1802-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp WP(C).No. 3023 of 2015 (C) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE18H DAY OF FEBRUARY201529TH MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 3023 of 2015 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------- OFFICERS' CLUB, AGED62YEARS, TRIVANDRUM, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM - 03 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT(REVENUE) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 001.2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUSHEELA R. BHATT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1802-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp WP(C).No. 3023 of 2015 (C) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD778
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J. 1. This Transfer CMP is filed by the petitioners, who are respondents in RCC No. 350 of 2000 seeking to transfer the same from the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad to the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad to be tried along with O.S. No. 527 of 2001 filed by the present petitioners against the respondents herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale.2, It is stated that the respondents 1 and 2 filed RCC No. 350 of 2000 against the Petitioners' father impleading him as the sole respondent when he was alive and eviction was sought for on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents, bona fide requirement of the premises for the petitioners therein and denial of title by the respondent/tenant. Apart from seeking vacant possession from the respondent, it is also sought for direction for arrears of rent in a sum of Rs. 50,704/-, in addition for direction to pay the future rents of Rs. 532/-per month from the da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(2)KLT119
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the second respondent to return the documents to the Rent Control Court without any further delay.2. Petitioner who is the landlord of a building bearing number T.C. 28/2051 has filed O.P.(RCP) No.26 of 1994 seeking eviction of respondents 3 and 4 under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Article 2 of 1965. Third respondent - tenant submitted that five cents of property comprised in survey numbers 726 and 727 of Vanchiyoor village where the scheduled building is situate was taken on lease by her husband late Peethambaran Nair during 1954-1955 period from its original jenmi, Pillaveedu family, for commercial purposes and he had constructed a shed for commercial purposes and therefore entitled to protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. She therefore prayed for reference of the matter to the Land Tribunal for adjudication.3. Landlord resisted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR2287; 2000(5)KarLJ106
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sudarshana Reddy, appearing for the respondent.2. The impugned order in the above revision petition is the one passed on I.A. II by the Munsiff, Sringeri in O.S. No. 167 of 1995 under Sections 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, staying the proceedings till the disposal of LRMCR No. 1256/75-76 pending before the Land Tribunal, Sringeri.3. The suit in O.S. No. 191 of 1994 is one for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of 1 acre 1 gunta of agricultural land in Sy. No. 91 of Masige Village, Sringeri Taluk. It is claimed that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and got it under a partition dated 27-12-1974. After the partition, the plaintiff filed Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy right. On 14-5-1987 in LRF No. 1256/75-76 the plaintiff has been granted occupancy right. After such grant, the name of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1989]65CompCas506(P& H)
J.V. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the executing court dated February 18, 1986, whereby the execution has been stayed in view of the provisions of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called ' the Act ').2. The facts are not in dispute. The premises in dispute belong to the petitioner, Hatbans Lal Sharma. They were taken on lease by the respondent company known as M/s. Chemical Vessels Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Eviction order dated December 11, 1984, was passed by the Rent Controller against the tenant. Meanwhile, liquidation proceedings under the Act were taken against the respondent-judgment-debtor in the Calcutta High Court where the winding up order was passed on September 18, 1985. Consequently a receiver-liquidator was appointed who now represents the judgment debtor. It is the common case of the parties that certain goods and machinery, etc., belonging to the judgment-debtor were hypothecated with the State Bank of India and are s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2272; JT1995(5)SC296; 1995(4)SCALE438; (1995)5SCC5; [1995]Supp2SCR1
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this appeal by special leave a short but an interesting question falls for determination. It is to the effect 'whether the appellate authority constituted under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') has power to condone the delay in the filing of appeal before it under the said section'. Majority of the Kerala High Court in the case of Jokkim Fernandez v. Amina Kunni Umma : AIR1974Ker162 has taken the view that the appellate authority has no such power. Following the said decision a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by its judgment and order under appeal has dismissed the revision application moved by the appellant herein whose appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed as time barred and the application for condonation of delay was treated to be not maintainable before the appellate authority.2. A few relevant facts leadings to these proceedings may now be looked at. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1043; 1994(30)DRJ601; 1994RLR473
Sat Pal, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 1991 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby the learned Rent Control Tribunal upheld the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 21.8.1991 in terms of which he allowed the application turn execution of eviction order filed by Shri Hans Raj, respondent (hereinafter referred to as landlord) and issued warrants of possession ignoring civil court's decree dated 10.10.90.(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the landlord let out the suit premises bearing flat No.20B, New Qutub Road, Delhi to the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant). In the year 1962 the landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant under Clause (b) of proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of sub-letting. It was alleged in this petition that the tenant sublet, assigned or otherwise parted-with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2005Ker328; 2005(3)KLT556
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The questions of law arising for consideration in these revisions are: (1) Whether the Court can invoke Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enforce the decree for injunction and to pass an order directing delivery of the property to the decree holder from the judgment debtor who forcibly evicted the decree holder violating the decree; and (2) When a suit is withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, whether an order passed under Rule 29 of Order XXI staying the execution of the decree, would revive on filing the fresh suit2. The facts necessary for disposal of these revisions are the following: O.S. No. 853 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Kozhikode was filed by A.P. Damodaran Namboodiri against his brother Krishnan Namboodiri and the wife and children of Krishnan Namboodiri, for a declaration that the properties purchased as per Ext.A2 document dated 31.3.1933 in the name of Krishnan Namboodiri were acq...
Tag this Judgment!