Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)Section 13 in Gold (Control) Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in Gold (Control) Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Gold (Control) Act, 1968
M.M. Chawla vs J.S. Sethi on 15 September, 1969
It will be noticed that the case of M. M. Chawla v. J. S. Sethi (supra), noticed by the learned Judge, dealt only with the question whether plea of standard rent could be raised in reply to a petition for eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent beyond the period of limitation prescribed by section 12 of the Act, and the Supreme Court on that aspect affirmed the decision of Deshpande, J. It is also true that the Controller, before passing an order under section 15(1), has to be satisfied that the defendant is a tenant in the premises, in view of sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act--(see observations of Shankar and Anand, JJ. in Ram Prakash Kapur v. Smt. Bhagwanti Devi : 1973 All India Rent Control Journal 328(5).
Kulwant Kaur vs Jiwan Singh on 25 October, 1971
(15) Mr. G. S. Vohra, learned counsel for the respondent, while placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in V. N. Vasudeva v. Kirori Mal : however, submitted that the observations of Deshpande, J. relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in Kulwant Kaur's case do not support his submission, and in any case the case has not been correctly decided as the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of F V. N. Vasudeva was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge.
Section 12 in Gold (Control) Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Romesh Chandra Das And Anr. vs Srimati Kamini Sundary Dasya And Ors. on 12 March, 1917
The Supreme Court made the foowing observations at page 444 of the report : "(12)Reference was made in this connection to a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Ramesh Chandra v. Smt. Subodhbala Dasi, in which Harries, C.J. observed that before making an order for the deposit of the rent, a full enquiry should be made. That was a case in which the tenant had pleaded that there was an agreement between him and the landlord that any amount spent on repairs would be set off against the rent. Harries, C.J. held that without ascertaining the truth of the plea that a large sum had been spent on repairs, an order to deposit the entire arrears of rent ought not to have been made. It is quite clear that the facts there were entirely different. Payment by the landlord for repairs was a part of the tenancy agreement and rent under that tenancy could not be calculated without advertence to every term of the agreement of tenancy. Here the special agreement which is pleaded is outside the tenancy agreement and allegation about the special agreement has been held to be an after-thought and false. It is therefore difficult to apply the ruling to the present circumstances."
Dhulabhai And Others vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another on 5 April, 1968
(51) It appears to us that this expression "prima facie" is coined by the courts to distinguish a finding on a question at the interlocutory stage as opposed to a finding given at the final stage of the trial. At the same time, for purposes of section 15(1), the determination of relationship and/or arrears of rent have to be final only for the limited purpose of section 15(1), and in that sense the finding is prima facie as opposed to the determination of the question at the end of the trial. Deshpande, J. further wen,t on to observe : "THEController has no jurisdiction to pass the order unless he first definitively finds that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The consequences of the wrong practice followed by the Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal, as in the present case, are serious. A non-compliance with the order under section 15(1) by the tenant would be visited with the penalty of striking off the defense under section 15(7) which would result in the Controller passing an order for eviction against the tenant. If the Controller, therefore, passes an order under section 15(1) without deciding the relationship between the parties and the non-compliance of this order results in the eviction of the tenant and if ultimately the Controller finds that the relationship did not exist between the parties, irreparable damage would have been caused to the tenant by being evicted from the premises by the Controller who did not have jurisdiction to pass the order under section 15(1). Further, an order passed by the Controller under section 15(1) without first determining whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties would be in contravention of the fundamental provisions of section 15(1) itself which requires the existence of the rclationship as a jurisdictional condition precedent to the exercise of the power by the Controller under section 15(1). Such an order would, therefore, be without jurisdiction according to the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Dhulabhai and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, . It is not possible, therefore, to countenance the present practice followed by the Controllers and the Rent Control Tribunal that the order under section 15(1) can be passed without first determining the jurisdictional condition about the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is to be noted that the Controller has only to determine such a jurisdictional condition before passing order under section 15(1)."