Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.39 seconds)Section 4 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Kanwar Singh Saini vs High Court Of Delhi on 23 September, 2011
6. Petitioner/ landlord filed the reply to the application and
opposed the same. Petitioner had taken the preliminary objection that
contempt application as such is not maintainable. Petitioner also took the stand
that contempt proceedings cannot be invoked for enforcement of relief, if any,
granted under DRC Act. Further, respondent argued that where the statute
gives right and provides forum for adjudication of rights, the remedy has to be
sought under the provision of that Act in the specified manner. Petitioner relied
on Kanwar Singh Saini v/s High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307. Perused
the same. Petitioner further argued that remedy if at all was available to the
respondent u/s 20(3) of DRC Act which mandates moving of application by the
tenant for repossession within the stipulated period of six months as per
section 4 of Delhi Rent Control Rules 1959 and no such application has been
moved by the respondent and therefore the respondent has lost his rights u/s
20(3) of DRC Act. The petitioner also prayed that the suit premises was given
to the respondent in January 1981 @ Rs.205/ per month for 11 months only
and respondent stayed therein for more than 30 years and the market rent of
suit shop is around Rs.40000/ pm and that giving the suit shop back to the
respondent on old terms and conditions is unjust, unfair and inequitable to the
petitioner. Petitioner insisted that the respondent should pay him either the
market rent or at least the equivalent of the rent fixed in the year 1981 at
today's price.
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Uday Shankar Triyar vs Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2005
It is the substance of
an application which is determinative of its true character. The application
clearly praying for direction to petitioner to hand over the possession is
indicative of the nature of application. Merely because the wrong provisions of
law have been mentioned in the title of the application, it will not tantamount
to declining the substantive relief claimed therein by taking a hyper technical
view. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on Uday Shankar Triyar v/s
Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & Anr. AIR 2006 SC 269 wherein it has been
held that procedural provision should not be allowed to defeat substantive
rights or to cause injustice. Therefore, the application is being treated as filed
u/s 20(3) of DRC Act also.
P.T. Xavier vs Lucy V. Papaly on 15 November, 2001
In this regard, reliance can also be placed on Xavier v/s Lucy V.
Papaly 2002(1) RCR 160 (ker) wherein it was held that the principle of
merger is applicable for computation of limitation and limitation to execute the
decree will start from the Decree of the appellate Court, therefore, it is held
that application has been filed within limitation.
1