B. N. AGARWAL, G. S. SINGHVI
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J. —
1. Whether Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short ‘the 1958 Act’) is ultra vires the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India is the question which arises for determination in these appeals.
2. For the sake of convenience, we have noted the facts from Civil Appeal No.1897 of 2003:
(i) On August 18, 1953, Delhi Improvement Trust leased out a plot of land measuring 184 sq. yards situated at Basti Reghar, Block ‘R’, Khasra Nos. 2942/1820 to 2943/1820 to Shri Jagat Singh son of Pt. Ram Kishan. In terms of Clause 4(c) of the lease deed, the lessee was prohibited from using the land and building (to be constructed over it) for any purpose other than residence, with a stipulation that in case of breach of this condition, the lease shall become void.
(ii) After constructing the building, the lessee inducted Shri Jai Narain Sharma and Dr. Ms. Tara Motihar, as tenants in two portions of the building, who started using the rented premises for running watch shop and clinic respectively.
(iii) Smt. Satyawati Sharma (appellant herein), who is now represented by her LRs, purchased property i.e. house bearing
Prabhakaran Nair vs. State of Tamil Nadu [1987 (4) SCC 238] – Referred. (Para 6)
Ram Krishna Dalmia and Ors. vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors.
Narottam Kishore Dev Verma vs. Union of India
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla vs. Union of India (AIR 1957 SC 628) – Referred. (Para 39)
Chintapalli Achaiah vs. P. Gopala Krishna Reddy
.Bhawani Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
Malpe Vishwanath Acharya and Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Another
C.N. Rudramurthy vs. K. Barkathulla Khan
Joginder Pal vs. Naval Kishore Behal
Common Cause vs. Union of India and Others
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Mohd. Shujat Ali vs. Union of India
Hasmat Rai vs. Raghunath Prasad
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P.
Motor General Traders vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar & Ors.
Mohinder Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another
Rattan Arya vs. State of Tamil Nadu
D.C. Bhatia and Others vs. Union of India and Another
L.I.C. of India and Another vs. Consumer Education & Research Centre and Others
Rakesh Vij vs. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi
Amarjit Singh vs. Smt. Khatoon Quamarin
Harbilas Rai Bansal vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain
Padma Sundra Rao (Dead) and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.