Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1225; JT1990(2)SC91; 1990(1)SCALE563; (1990)2SCC271; [1990]1SCR727; 1990(1)LC644(SC)
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Whether a lease is of land appurtenant to a building or vice-versa continues to remain an issue providing pabulum for many a litigation. In the instant case also that issue has assumed decisive dimension. Our efforts to have this case settled out of court did not fructify despite the active role played by counsel on both sides. So we have to determine this issue on the facts of this case.2. This case reached the Supreme Court after drifting through a long stream of vicissitudes. Genesis of this litigation is traced to a lease created during pre-independence days when one of the two buildings situated in the disputed property was rented out by its owner, (a bureaucrat then stationed at Delhi) to one Somappa Naik. On 28-7-1951 a new lease deed was executed by the said Somappa Naik in respect of the disputed property having an area of 1.60 acres containing the same pucca residential building thereon, for a monthly rent of Rs.9/-. When the lessee continued under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC879; JT1990(3)SC25; 1990(1)SCALE416; (1990)2SCC279; [1990]1SCR736; 1990(1)LC633(SC)
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. This appeal by a tenant-defendant is directed against the decree for his eviction from a shop on the ground mentioned in Section 13(2)(v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which renders the tenant liable for eviction if he has ceased to occupy the rented premises for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. The questions which are involved in this case are whether a tenant can be said to have ceased to occupy a building merely for the reason that he temporarily suspends the actual physical user thereof; and whether a landlord is entitled to a decree even if the tenant has re-occupied the premises before the eviction proceeding was commenced.2. The landlord-respondent filed the present application for eviction of the appellant before the Rent Controller in March, 1973 and inter alia pleaded that for a continuous period of more than four months the appellant had ceased to occupy the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC882; JT1990(2)SC94; 1990(1)SCALE409; (1990)2SCC659; [1990]1SCR733; 1990(1)LC642(SC)
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the respondent-company against the appellant, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, for a mandatory injunction to restore the supply of electricity discontinued during the pendency of the suit. Initially the suit was filed for a prohibitory injunction from disconnecting the electric connection. The plaint was amended following stoppage of the supply of energy.2. According to the plaintiff's case, the suit had to be filed as the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking was threatening disconnection without disclosing any reason. Subsequently, some officers of the Undertaking made an inspection of the meters and alleged theft of electricity after tampering with the seals affixed on the meters. A First Information Report was lodged with the police.3. Admittedly no notice was served by the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking on the plaintiff before severing the electric connection. The learned trial court, howe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1725; JT1990(1)SC497; 1990(1)SCALE384; (1990)3SCC30; [1990]1SCR715; 1990(2)LC83(SC)
ORDERRanganath Misra, J.1. Special Leave granted.2. This is an appeal by the landlady whose application for being put in possession of the premises on the expiry of a limited tenancy of two years under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, the Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court.3. On 30th September, 1976, the appellant-landlady and the respondent-tenant appeared before Shri M.A. Khan, Additional Rent Controller for creation of a tenancy under Section 21 of the Act. The Additional Rent Controller recorded the statements of both the landlady and the prospective tenant and made the following order:Having regard to the facts stated in the petition and the statement of the parties made above permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is granted to Smt. Yamuna Maloo applicant to let out ground floor of her premises No. B-2/104, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi comprising of drawing cum dini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(3)SCC492
Ranganath Misra,; M.M. Punchhi and; K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. We have heard learned Attorney General appearing for Union of India and respondent 1 in person. An affidavit has now been filed by respondent 1 which indicates that with effect from January 19, 1990, he has been appointed as a full-fledged Secretary to the Government in the Ministry of Welfare and he wants this fact to be taken notice of and its effect on the Union of India's appeal to be considered.2. Learned Attorney General while accepting that fact states that the appeal apart from giving relief to the respondent has laid down certain propositions which would be difficult for the Union Government to accept and, therefore, even if respondent 1 has been given the relief which he claimed and the Union of India has given effect to the decision of the Tribunal, the appeal has to be heard unless we are prepared to adopt the course adopted by this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 2458 of 1984 and 322 of 1984.3. Respondent 2 has not challe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC952; JT1990(1)SC319; (1991)IILLJ265SC; 1990(1)SCALE295; (1990)2SCC542; [1990]1SCR594
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. This petition is filed as stated in the petition by an Association of about 2,000 employees working in 500 Railway Institutes and Clubs in various parts of the country. Their grievance, as in the case of the petitioners in the matters pertaining the Railway Canteens, is that they are not treated as railway employees. It is their case that although the Institutes/Clubs in which they work are non-statutory, they are on par with the employees in the statutory canteens run in the Railway establishments proper. According to them, the Railway Institutes and Clubs were set up to provide recreational facilities to the railway employees. They are managed by Committees consisting of representatives of all the members of the Institutes/Clubs elected periodically. The Institutes/Clubs have the following category of employees: (1) Manager (2) Accountant (3) Clerk (4) Librarian in charge (5) Librarian (6) Watchman (7) Daftry (8) Watermen (9) Canteen employees (10) Billiards Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1098; [1990(60)FLR738]; 1990(1)SCALE336; 1990Supp(1)SCC701; [1990]1SCR604
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. Seniority in services is usually irksome. But the nature of dispute amongst officers in Class 'A' of Indian Defence Estates Service, who were promoted from Class 'B' of Military and Cantonment service where they were working as Assistant Military Estates Officers (AMEO) and Assistant Military Estates Officers (Technical) (AMEOT), is slightly, unusually. That is why apart from correctness or otherwise of directions issued by the Tribunal (Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi) for re-determining seniority one of the issues debated was if this Court in exercise of its powers under2. Article 136 of the Constitution of India should interfere with orders of Tribunal if substantial justice has been done between parties. To this may be added, yet, another, namely, if the Union of India should have approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition not for sake of justice or injustice, legality or illegality of any provision but because it may have to pay few tho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC849; JT1990(2)SC176; 1990(1)SCALE429; (1990)2SCC268; 1990(1)LC372(SC)
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. This appeal by and on behalf of sixty-one persons who came as refugees from West Pakistan in 1947 is directed against the order of the Delhi High Court rejecting their writ petition at the admission stage on the ground of laches. The appellants are aggrieved by a land acquisition proceeding in respect to the lands which they had obtained at an auction held in 1959 for the purpose of rehabilitating the evacuees.2. Soon after the purchase of the land by the petitioners a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in respect to an area shown in the map attached thereto, which included the lands of the petitioners. According to the case of the petitioners they had no information of this notification and they, therefore, did not take any step for its annulment. It was only in January, 1969 when the notification under Section 6 was issued that the petitioners learnt about the acquisition proceeding. They, then, raised their prot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1208; (1990)92BOMLR322; JT1990(1)SC372; 1990(1)SCALE319; (1990)2SCC331; 1990(1)LC367(SC); 1990(1)WLN49
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant is the tenant of premises consisting of three rooms, a kitchen and a toilet, situated at Jaipur. The respondent (landlord) filed a suit for the eviction of the appellant on the ground of reasonable and bonafide personal necessity and sub- letting of the premises without his consent. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court on both the grounds. On appeal the suit was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The High Court, in second appeal, reversed the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, and has passed a decree for eviction against the appellant on the ground that the appellant has sub-let or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises without the consent of the landlord.3. In the sit plan (Ex. A-1) the premises which have been let to the appellant are marked as 'K'. The adjacent room marked as 'J' has been let out by the respondent to Shri Mahendra Singh, the brother-in-law of the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC937; [1991(61)FLR271]; JT1990(3)SC1; 1990(1)SCALE324; 1990Supp(1)SCC191; [1990]1SCR687; (1990)1UPLBEC498
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. This group of petitions concerns the workers in canteens run in the different railway establishments. The relief claimed in all the petitions is that the workers concerned should be treated as railway employees and should be extended all service conditions which are available to the railway employees.2. For our purpose, these canteens have to be classified into three categories, viz. (i) Statutory Canteens-These are canteens required to be provided compulsorily in view of the provisions of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) since the Act admittedly applies to the establishments concerned and the employees working in the said establishments exceed 250; (ii) Non-Statutory Recognised Canteens-These canteens are run in the establishments which may or may not be governed by the Act but which admittedly employ 250 or less than 250 employees, and hence, it is not obligatory on the railways to maintain them. However, they have been...
Tag this Judgment!