Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing Globetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha And Anr. on 7 August, 2002

Shri Asfaq Ahmad vs Smt. Shama Gupta on 28 April, 2012

8 The ground taken by the appellant/tenant for delay in deposit of arrears of rent was that he was supplied with the account number of respondent/landlady at belated stage and that he had given a sum of Rs. 60,000/­ to one Naresh Kumar for the marriage of his daughter and that was the reason for not depositing the rent in time. 9 It is correct that initially the account number supplied by the respondent/landlady to the appellant was wrong but correct account number was furnished to him on 18.05.2010. In order dated 21.10.2009 appellant was specifically directed to clear the arrears of rent within one month from the date of the order. If so reckoned, the appellant ought to have deposited the arrears of rent by 21.11.2009 which he did not do. Even otherwise, as per appellant, correct account number was supplied to him on 18.05.2010, then he was required to deposit the arrears of rent by 18.06.2010 which he again did not do. He deposited the arrears of rent only on 13.09.2010 which MCA No.29/11 Asfaq Ahmad vs. Shama Gupta Page 4 of 9 was beyond the period of one month from the date of supply of fresh correct account number by the respondent/landlady. 10 The other ground taken by the appellant/tenant is that he had given Rs. 60,000/­ to one Naresh Kumar which he returned in September, 2010 and then only he deposited the arrears of rent. appellant can not be allowed to take such a ground when he was facing the eviction proceedings. It does not appeal to reasons that a person who is facing eviction proceedings, would disobey the directions of the Court. In the present case, instead of depositing the arrears of rent, appellant went on to lend money to some other person which was a flagrant violation of the order dated 21.10.2009. 11 Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgment in case of M/s Globetech Engineers vs. Ajay Chadha and another 2002 VI AD(Delhi) 672. The facts of the said case were that composite notice was given to pay the arrears of rent failing which eviction will take automatically effect on a default to occur in future. It was observed that Controller can not invoke the provisions of section 15(7) of the Act simultaneously while passing the order under section 15(1) of the Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shrimati Jubeda W/O Late Sh. Yamla ... vs Shri Kush Nawaj Hassan S/O Sh. Aijaja ... on 6 July, 2011

22. Another plea taken by the ld. counsel for appellant is that ld. Trial Court has passed composite order, inasmuch while observing that petitioner is entitled to eviction order, order under section 15(1) DRC Act has also been passed. Therefore, the order unsustainable. Reliance was placed on M/s Globetech Engineers vs. Ajay Chadha & Ors., 2002 (2) RCR 395. With due respect, this authority does not help the appellant inasmuch as in that case, Rent Controller passed an order directing tenant RCT No. 24/11 & 31/11 Page 14/16 ­15­ to pay entire arrears within one month failing which there will be deemed eviction. Under those circumstances, it was held by Hon'ble High Court that it was a composite order u/s 15(1) as well as an order of eviction u/s 14(1)(a) DRC Act and therefore it was set aside. Things are different here, inasmuch as, since initially no order under section 15(1) DRC Act was passed. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have passed the order while observing that petitioner has been able to make out a case under section 14(1)(a) DRC Act. The order would have been composite one, if while passing the order under section 15(1) DRC Act, the Rent Controller had passed the order that failure to comply with order u/s 15(1) DRC Act would be deemed to result in eviction order. Therefore this plea is not available to the appellant.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shrimati Jubeda W/O Late Sh. Yamla ... vs Shri Kush Nawaj Hassan S/O Sh. Aijaja ... on 6 July, 2011

22. Another plea taken by the ld. counsel for appellant is that ld. Trial Court has passed composite order, inasmuch while observing that petitioner is entitled to eviction order, order under section 15(1) DRC Act has also been passed. Therefore, the order unsustainable. Reliance was placed on M/s Globetech Engineers vs. Ajay Chadha & Ors., 2002 (2) RCR 395. With due respect, this authority does not help the appellant inasmuch as in that case, Rent Controller passed an order directing tenant RCT No. 24/11 & 31/11 Page 14/16 ­15­ to pay entire arrears within one month failing which there will be deemed eviction. Under those circumstances, it was held by Hon'ble High Court that it was a composite order u/s 15(1) as well as an order of eviction u/s 14(1)(a) DRC Act and therefore it was set aside. Things are different here, inasmuch as, since initially no order under section 15(1) DRC Act was passed. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have passed the order while observing that petitioner has been able to make out a case under section 14(1)(a) DRC Act. The order would have been composite one, if while passing the order under section 15(1) DRC Act, the Rent Controller had passed the order that failure to comply with order u/s 15(1) DRC Act would be deemed to result in eviction order. Therefore this plea is not available to the appellant.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amarjeet Athotra vs Maninder Singh on 18 October, 2011

32.The last objection of the tenant is based on the law laid down in ARCT No. 36/2010 Amarjeet Athotra & anr. Vs. Maninder Singh & anr. 16 of 19 Globetch Engineers Vs. Ajay Chadha & anr. [2002(64) DRJ525]. The contention is that the learned Rent Controller having modified the order under Section 15(1) DRC Act should have adjourned the matter to a date beyond the period within which the compliance was to be made and, thereafter, considered as to what further order required to be passed.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Panchayti Dharmarth Trust vs Usha Gupta on 27 July, 2024

24. At this stage, it needs to be noted that a composite order is not legal. In an eviction petition filed on the ground of non- payment of rent, the court cannot say that it is passing an eviction order subject to fulfilment of conditions by the tenant i.e. if the tenant pays the amount, he will not be evicted but if he makes default, he will be evicted. A division bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Globetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha 2002 SCC OnLine Del 834 did not accept composite orders whereby rent controller had directed that if the tenant fails to pay the amount in the given period, the eviction will take effect. Taking a cue therefrom, it can be said that an order directing the eviction subject to inquiry to be conducted lateron in respect of payment made or not made by the tenant, cannot be passed.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Mishra vs Gurjeet Singh on 2 November, 2012

In this regard reliance can be placed on Chinnamarkathian Vs Ayyavo AIR 1982 SC 137, Ram Murti Vs Bhola Nath & Anr. AIR 1984 SC 1392, H.P. Vaid Vs S.K.R. Bhandari 35 (1988) DLT 7, M/s Globetech Engineer Vs Ajay Chadha & Anr. 2002 (6) AD RCT no. 13/12 2 of 7 3 Delhi 672 DB. What to say more in B.R. Mehta Vs Smt. Atma Devi 37 (1989) DLT 416 law went to the extent that composite order can be challenged even in execution. That being so the same is always open to be challenged in present appeal which is continuation of the main petition.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next