APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of
Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as‘the Act’). whether  he was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e.
whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop - the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in possession of the shop in pursuance of a sham partnership deed and  was  not merely assisting in the shop as a son-in-law.- The High  Court held that the respondent-tenant, Hakim Rai had not sub-let the  premises  to his  son-in-law,  Raj  Kumar  in  pursuance  of  a  partnership  deed  dated 20.05.1983 entered into between them.- Apex court held that  we  find  that  a significant fact which has not been  controverted  by  the  respondents  has been completely overlooked in the proceedings of the courts below.That fact is that no consent in  writing  was  obtained  from  the  landlord before the so called partnership was entered into  between  the  tenant  and the sub-tenant,  and  before  the  sub-tenant  was  allowed  to  occupy  the premises.- We accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court  and  direct  that
the respondents shall be evicted.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS