Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.61 seconds)
Sh Ajab Singh vs Shri Mukesh Chand Gupta on 2 May, 2011 cites

Mitter Sen Jain vs Shakuntala Devi on 19 April, 2000

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Mitter Sen Jain Vs. Shakuntala Devi 85(2000) Delhi Law Times 658 (SC) has held that- „Even if any new area is included within the urban area of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, a further notification is required to be issued under proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Unless the area is so specified in the Schedule by a notification, the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act cannot be made applicable to that area. It is admitted that no notification has yet been issued under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act specifying Sagarpur area within the schedule of the Act. In absence of such a notification, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act cannot be enforced to the area, namely, Sagarpur.‟ In the present case, the village Sikdarpur was added in the Union Territory of Delhi. However, there is no notification filed by the appellant/defendant or any other document filed on record to show that the Revenue Estate of Sikdarpur is urbanized and Delhi Rent Control Act is applicable to the Revenue Estate of Sikdarpur. Unless the Revenue Estate of Sikdarpur where the suit property is notified for its urbanization, the same cannot be said to be covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The plea taken by the Learned Counsel of appellant/defendant that the suit of the respondent/plaintiff is barred u/s 50 of Delhi rent Control Act, 1958 is without force.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 213 - V N Khare - Full Document
1