Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Section 13 in The Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 [Entire Act]
Trustees, Chokkanathaswami Temple vs Poovanna Navanna Vadivelmuruga Nadar on 15 October, 1935
These two authorities lay down exceptions occurring in the particular circumstances of the case, but the general rule is as laid down by the High Court of Madras in Trustees, Chokkonathaswami Temple's case supra. A decision of the Privy Council is also helpful to support the aforesaid view taken by the High Court of Madras.
S. Sanyal vs Gian Chand on 14 September, 1967
(12) An instructive case arose under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 38 of 1952 where the definition of the premises was similar. The landlord had instituted a suit for eviction against the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The eviction could be ordered only in respect of residential premises. 'The courts of fact found that one part of the tenanted premises was being used for residential and the other part for non-residential purposes. The High Court ordered the eviction only from the residential portion of the premises. On appeal by special leave, the Supreme Court in Miss S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand, , reversed the order of the High Court and in this context observed :- "THEjurisdiction of the court may be exercised under section 13(1)(e) only when the promises are let for residential purposes and not when the premises being let for composite purposes, are used in specific portions for purposes residential and non-residential. The contract of tenancy is a single and indivisible contract, and in; the absence of any statutory provision to the effect it is not open to the court to divide it into two contracts-one of letting for residential purposes and the other for non-residential purposes, and to grant relief to the landlord under section 13(1)(e) limited to the portion of the demised property which is being used for residential purposes."
Section 2 in The Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 [Entire Act]
Madras Estates Land Act, 1908
Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885
Ram Kanie Mandal And Ors. vs Gunesh Chunder Sen And Ors. on 9 April, 1883
The court followed three earlier decisions on the subject, Ram Kanie Mandal v. Ganesh Chunder Sen, (1883) 33 C. L. J. 513, Kamleshwari Prasad Singh v. Harbullah Narain Singh.
Chandra Mohan Banikya And Ors. vs Srimati Meherjan Banu And Ors. on 17 May, 1926
(10) In Chandra Mohan Banikya and others v. Srimati Meherjan Banu and others , a Division Bench of the High Court deciding the case under the Bengal Tenancy Act held that partial ejectment could be allowed only under special circumstances, and- could not be decreed as a rule unless and until some strong case had been made out.
1