Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.99 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989
(15) The learned Counsel for the parties drew our attention to the lease deed marked Ex.D-1. It is admitted that the said lease deed is not registered and therefore, the question of the admissibility of the said document in evidence does arise for our consideration. It is by now a settled law that an unregistered lease deed could be looked into only for the collateral purposes and not for the terms as has been held in the case of Bajaj Auto Limited v. Behari Lal Kohli; , and subsequently reiterated in the case of Rai Chand Jain v. M/s. Chandra Kanta Khosla; In the case of Bajaj Auto Limited (supra) the lease had given rights to the tenants to assign/part with possession to their associate concerns. In the said case the Apex Court refused to look into the lease on account of non-registration holding that the 'right to assign to the associate' was a term of the transaction incorporation in the documents and could not be dissociated from the lease and considered in isolation. In the said decision the Apex Court had further held that the term 'associate concern' was too general so as to constitute specific permission. It is admitted by the parties to the suit that the initial tenant to the suit property was M/s. Dynamic Sales International Pvt. Ltd. and subsequently the said tenancy was transferred to M/s. Concord International Pvt. Ltd. On the aforesaid question also there appears to be no dispute between the parties. The only dispute which arises for our consideration is that apart from the defendant No.1 some other companies also came to be/ continued to be the tenants of the suit property or not. On consideration of both documentary as well as oral evidence on record, the lea mod Trial Court came to the definite finding that there was no material on record from which it could be said that there was any other tenant in the premises except defendant No.1 and that defendant No. I was the sole tenant in the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000.00 . On perusal of the evidence on record we find that the associates who are claimed to be also the tenants in respect of the suit property as urged by the counsel for the appellants are none other than companies/firms etc. claimed to be owned/ controlled by Shri Vipin Khanna, who is the appellant No. I in the present appeal. In the written statement it was categorically stated that the intention between the parties was that all the associate companies headed, controlled and managed by defendant No. 2, would have independent legal tenancy rights in relation to the suit premises. In his evidence also particularly in the cross-examination he stated that he was associated with the said companies in various capacities such as Director, Joint Managing Director, Managing Director, partner etc. It is thus, apparent that the said associates which are alleged to be co-tenants in respect of the suit property are the owned companies/firms of the appellant No. 1. The original lease deed which was exhibited as Ex. D-1 does not name any of the associates. Subsequently, when the tenancy was transferred in favor of defendant No. 1, it appears that rent was paid through cheques by the defendant No. 1 as would appear from the contents of Annexure P-12 dated 29.6.1976 which is a latter of M/s. Concord International Pvt. Ltd. which stated "please find enclosed herewith our cheque No. 913132 dated 29.6.1976 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs. 18,000.00 towards rent w.e.f. 18.6.1976 to 17.9.1976 in respect of 5, Golf Links, New Delhi, leased out to our company.
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Madan And Co. vs Wazir Jai Veer Chand on 18 December, 1984
In the case of M/s. Madan v. Wazir J.V. Chand the Apex Court has held that all that a landlord can do is to comply with the provision is to post a pre-paid registered letter (acknowledgement due or otherwise) containing the tenant's correct address and that once the same is done and a letter is delivered to the post office, he has no control over it and that it can then be presumed to have been delivered to the addressee under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. The above being the settled law and in the present case it having been proved by the plaintiffs that a notice as envisaged under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act having been issued by the plaintiffs to the concerned defendants at their residential address in accordance with law, it can well be presumed under the aforesaid provisions - statutory as well as case laws that the said notices have been duly served on the said defendants and therefore, in that view of the matter we do not find any infirmity to interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Court that the notice terminating the tenancy was duly, properly and validly served on the defendants.
D.C. Bhatia And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 19 October, 1994
(11) On the question of termination of the tenancy the learned Judge held that the tenancy of the first defendant in respect of the property in suit was properly terminated. On the issue with regard to the constitutional validity of the amendment to Delhi Rent Control Act in the year 1988, the learned Judge held that the said issue was already concluded by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 410/1989 titled D.C. Bhatia v. Union of India decided on 11.2.1991 and accordingly the said issue was also decided against the defendants.
D.C. Oswal vs V.K.Subbiah And Ors on 12 November, 1991
(21) The learned Counsel for the appellants also urged before us that the learned Trial Court was not justified in taking a judicial notice of the fact of increase of rents like the suit property and also in providing Rs.10,000.00 per month as fair amount towards damages mesne profits in favor of the plaintiffs. It is true that no substantial evidence has been led by the plaintiffs in respect of the increase of rent in the properties like that of the suit property. However, it is a well known fact that the amount of rent for various properties in and around Delhi has been rising staggeringly and we cannot see why such judicial notice could not be taken of the fact about such increase of rents in the premises in and around Delhi which is a city of growing importance being the capital of the country which is a matter of public history. At this stage we may appropriately refer to the Court taking judicial notice of the increase of price of land rapidly in the urban areas in connection with the land acquisition matters. Even the Apex Court has taken judicial notice of the fact of universal escalation of rent and even raised rent of disputed premises by taking such judicial in case of D.C. Oswal v. V.K. Subbiah; .
1