Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.44 seconds)Section 7 in The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971
Section 15 in The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 9 in The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
New Delhi Municipal Committee vs Kalu Ram & Anr on 20 April, 1976
He relied upon NDMC Vs Kalu Ram's case (Supra) to emphasis
that the whole proceeding is time barred and the law does not
allow the recovery of time barred debt. Ld. Counsel submitted
that the Estate Officer also failed to consider the guidelines
issued by Ministry of Urban Development.
Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank vs T.P.Satheesan Pillai (D) Thru Lrs. on 19 April, 2016
Ld. Counsel further
PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 13 of 24
submitted that in Syndicate Bank Vs Ramchnadaran Pillai &
Ors., 2011 (1) Scale 368, it was interalia held that unauthorized
occupant or tenant against whom action is initiated under PP Act
cannot resist the proceedings on the ground of noncompliance
with the said guidelines.
Damayanti Verma (Deceased) Through Her ... vs Lic And Anr. on 25 July, 2011
Reliance was also
placed on Damayanti Verma (Deceased) Vs LIC and Anr.,
WP(C) 4342/2007. Ld. Counsel also filed written submissions.
The appellants also filed amended/additional written
submissions. In the additional written submissions, it was stated
that the appellants have already handed over the physical
possession of the premises in question to respondent no.2 on
30.08.2019.
G R Gupta vs Lok Sabha Secretariat on 14 May, 2013
7. The respondent no.2 filed reply stating therein that the
appeal is liable to be dismissed as having been filed after expiry
of the period of limitation. The respondent no.2 stated that in
view of judgment in G.R.Gupta Vs Lok Sabha Secretariat, AIR
2013 Delhi 214 and L.S. Nayar Vs Hindustan Steel Limited,
Bhilai and Ors., AIR 1980 MP 106, the Limitation Act has no
application to the proceedings before the Estate Officer and
therefore, the damages have rightly been awarded by the Estate
Officer. The respondent no.2 further submitted that rent was
enhanced from time to time on the basis of agreement reached
with the appellants in a meeting between Zonal Rent Negotiation
Committee of LIC and officials from Indian Post & Telegraph
Department held on 24.02.2003 and in pursuance of the same,
the rent was enhanced from time to time. The respondent no.2
stated that the appellants did not pay the revised rent despite
several demand and remained a habitual defaulter in payment of
rent, service tax and other dues. It was further stated that the
appellants failed to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of
PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 8 of 24
premises in question despite service of notice dated 14.05.2015
by virtue of which the tenancy was terminated. It has been
submitted that the damages have been assessed on the basis of
prevalent market rent. It was further stated that they were forced
to initiate the proceedings under PP Act as appellants were not
paying the rent, service tax and other dues as per negotiation
meeting dated 24.02.2003 and the appellants failed to finalize the
rent after expiry of lease term i.e. from 16.11.2012. The
respondent no.2 stated that the Estate Officer has rightly decided
the arrears to be paid by the appellants to respondent no.2 after
considering all the factors like pleadings, evidence, documents
and arguments of both the parties and there is no illegality or
unfairness in the order of Estate Officer. Respondent no.2 stated
that they are already suffering heavy losses as the Estate Officer
did not consider the claim of revised rent from 17.09.2004 to
16.09.2009 @ Rs.28.50 per sq.ft. amounting Rs.52,796/ and
instead has awarded the rent @ Rs.34,342.50/pm from
16.09.2004 to 15.06.2015.