Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)The Amending Act, 1897
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 50 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Damadilal And Others vs Parashram And Others on 7 May, 1976
"WE now proceed to deal with the further argument advanced on behalf of the landlords that the amendment to the definition of 'tenant' with retrospective effect introduced by the Delhi Rent Control Amendment Act (Act 18 of 1976) to give personal protection and personal right of continuing in possession to the heirs of the deceased statutory tenant in respect of residential premises only and not with regard to the heirs of the so called statutory tenant' in respect of commercial premises, indicates that the heirs of so called statutory tenants, therefore, do not enjoy any protection under the Act. This argument proceeds on the basis that in the absence of any specific right created in favor of the so called statutory tenant in respect of his tenancy, the heirs of the statutory tenant who do not acquire any interest or estate in the tenanted permises, become liable to be evicted as a matter of course. The very premise on the basis of which the argument is advanced is, in our opinion, unsound. The termination of the contractual tenancy in view of the definition of tenant in the Act does not bring about any change in the status and legal position of the tenant, unless there are contrary provisions in the Act; and, the tenant notwithstanding the termination of tenancy does enjoy an estate or interest in the tenanted premises. This interest or estate which the tenant under the Act despite termination of the contractual tenancy continues to enjoy creates a heritable interest in the absence of any provision to the contrary. We have earlier noticed the decision of this Court in Damadilal's case (supra).
Barham Dutt And Ors. vs Peoples' Co-Operative Transport ... on 8 August, 1960
(24) In the next place, it was argued by learned Counsel for appellants, that the sale of one half share of Shri Sri Ram (deceased) in the property, by his widow and sons, vide sale deed dated July 19, 1962, was without consideration, as the alleged sale was made for consideration, as referred to in the Dissolution Deed (Exhibit PW6/2), dated April 8, 1954. But, in the later Dissolution Deed (Exhibit D.5. W4/1), it was mentioned that the partnership continued, even after the execution of the Dissolution Deed dated April 8, 1954. According to Mr. Tandon, the Courts below have not properly construed these two Deeds, and the construction of the document, was a question of law, which could be raised in the second appeal. Whether, a person was a owner or not, is a question of fact. But, whether, the material evidence, if not considered of when documents not properly interpreted, then, the same become questions of law. Reference was made to the judgments in Chittoori Subbanna v. Kudappa Subbanna and others, ; Dalip Singh Arjan Singh v. Rakha Ram L. MunshiRam, ; Barham Dutt and others v. Peoples Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. New Delhi and others, and Rai Harendra Lal Roy Bahadur Estate Ltd. v. Hem Chandra Naskar and another .
Motor General Traders & Anr. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Etc. Etc on 26 October, 1983
(10) Reliance has been placed upon the judgments in Damadilal and others v. Parashram and others, , Motor General Traders and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others Air 1984 Supreme Court 121; Smt. Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar and others, ; Anand Nivas Private Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji's Pedht and others, and J.C. Chatterjee & others v. Shri Sri Kishan Tandon and another, .
Anand Nivas (Private) Ltd vs Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi & Ors on 5 September, 1963
Before the Supreme Court in Damadilal's case, the question was whether heirs of a statutory tenant could continue the second appeal before the High Court against the decision of lower appellate Court against the statutory tenant and while deciding this question the Supreme Court emphasized that it will depend on the definition of the tenant as given in the statute, that is why the Supreme Court merely distinguished the earlier decisions in Anand Nivas and J.C.Chetterjee's case and did not overrule them.