Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Smt. Rattan Kaur vs Delhi Development Authority And Anr. on 26 July, 2007
23. The decisions in Rattan Kaur v. DDA 145 (2007) DLT 283 and Prof.
Ram Prakash v. DDA 2007 RLR 565 cannot be said to be applicable to
the facts of the instant case. The Plaintiff here has filed a suit for eviction
of the tenant and has informed the Defendants that the misuse came to an
end with the eviction of the tenant. Also if the Plaintiff seeks to take
advantage of the Office Order No. 23/76 dated 31 st March 1976 which
restricts the penalty to one per cent then it cannot be heard to say that
there was no misuse of the premises at all. Issue No.6 is accordingly
answered against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants.
Issue No. 3.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of circular
No.23/76 dated 31st March, 1976? If so to what extent?
Prof. Ram Prakash vs D.D.A. on 17 August, 2007
23. The decisions in Rattan Kaur v. DDA 145 (2007) DLT 283 and Prof.
Ram Prakash v. DDA 2007 RLR 565 cannot be said to be applicable to
the facts of the instant case. The Plaintiff here has filed a suit for eviction
of the tenant and has informed the Defendants that the misuse came to an
end with the eviction of the tenant. Also if the Plaintiff seeks to take
advantage of the Office Order No. 23/76 dated 31 st March 1976 which
restricts the penalty to one per cent then it cannot be heard to say that
there was no misuse of the premises at all. Issue No.6 is accordingly
answered against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants.
Issue No. 3.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of circular
No.23/76 dated 31st March, 1976? If so to what extent?
Govind Das And Ors. vs The Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 18 December, 1975
27. It is plain from the above clause that there are two kinds of cases. One
is the non-re-entered cases and the other the re-entered ones. As far as the
Plaintiff is concerned, in view of the order dated 18th September 1992
treating his suit as withdrawn, the case of the Plaintiff must be treated as
non-re-entered case. Therefore, in terms of Clause 10, the Plaintiff would
have to pay 10% penalty in addition to the additional charges for the sum
misuse. This 10% penalty would stand reduced to one per cent if in terms
of Clause 8, the ex-lessee or lessee files a suit for eviction. Under the
subsequent circular of 8/1999, it was stated that the 10% penalty would be
reduced to one per cent. The Circular 8/1999, therefore, is only
clarificatory and does not reduce or increase an existing liability.
Therefore, the reliance placed by the Plaintiff on the decision in Govind
Das v. ITO (1976) 1 SCC 906 is misconceived.
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Birla Institute Of Scientific Research vs Union Of India And Ors. on 12 July, 1993
28. In the present case, it is held that the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit
of Clause 8 of the Circular No.23/1976 as further clarified by the Office
Order No.8 of 1999. Reliance is placed on the decision in Birla Institute
of Scientific Research v. Union of India 53 (1994) DLT 342 and Justice
Sisir Kumar Sen v Union of India 1996 (39) DRJ 358 to contend that
what would be recovered was only one per cent of the misuser charges.
On a perusal of the judgment in Birla Institute of Scientific Research,
this Court does not find the said judgment to be holding that the 1%
CS (OS) No.264/2004 Page 13 of 19
penalty alone should be recovered and not the misuser charges itself.
Likewise in Sisir Kumar Sen, again the question really was about the
extent of penalty. This decision also does not hold that the need to pay the
misuser charges is to be dispensed with.
Justice Sisir Kumar Sen vs Union Of India on 30 September, 1996
28. In the present case, it is held that the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit
of Clause 8 of the Circular No.23/1976 as further clarified by the Office
Order No.8 of 1999. Reliance is placed on the decision in Birla Institute
of Scientific Research v. Union of India 53 (1994) DLT 342 and Justice
Sisir Kumar Sen v Union of India 1996 (39) DRJ 358 to contend that
what would be recovered was only one per cent of the misuser charges.
On a perusal of the judgment in Birla Institute of Scientific Research,
this Court does not find the said judgment to be holding that the 1%
CS (OS) No.264/2004 Page 13 of 19
penalty alone should be recovered and not the misuser charges itself.
Likewise in Sisir Kumar Sen, again the question really was about the
extent of penalty. This decision also does not hold that the need to pay the
misuser charges is to be dispensed with.
1