Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the east punjab urban rent restriction amendment act 1950 Page 1 of about 374 results (0.197 seconds)

Mar 20 1956 (HC)

S. Harbhajan Singh Vs. Munshi Ram

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1956P& H246

..... 2 of which, added the following words to sub-section(1) of section 13 of the act of 1949 namely: 'or to pursuance of order made under section 13, punjab urban rent restriction act 1947, as subsequently amended.' 4. this amendment had the effect of reviving and resuscitating all decrees ..... or orders which had been passed under the act of 1947 and which ..... the act of 1949. these notices failed to achieve the object which the landlord had in view and on 28-1-1950 in one case and 6-2-1950 in the other the landlord brought two separate actions for the eviction of his tenants. while the cases were pending in court the governor of the punjab promulgated an ordinance known as the east punjab urban rent restriction (amendment) ordinance, 1950, section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 1980 (SC)

Gurcharan Singh and ors. Vs. Shri V.K. Kaushal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1980SC1866; (1980)4SCC244; [1981]1SCR490

..... 1(2) of the principal act declared that the principal act would be deemed to have come into force on 26th january, 1950 ..... relevant act.8. in our opinion, the respondent cannot avail of section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the east punjab urban rent restriction act on the basis that it was brought into operation in the ambala cantonment by the notification of 1969.9. we find, however, that the cantonment (extension of rent control laws) act, 1957 was amended by act no. xxii of 1972. upon amendment, section ..... dated 21st november, 1969 and extending the east punjab urban rent restriction act afresh to cantonments in the states of haryana and punjab. section 1(3) of that act was modified to read that, except for section 19, it would be deemed to have come into force on 26th january, 1950. the result is that the east punjab urban rent restriction act will be deemed to have come into force ..... in the ambala cantonment on 26th january, 1950. and if that be so, the sub-letting effected in 1967 must plainly be regarded as having been .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 1983 (HC)

Daya Chand Hardayal Vs. Bir Chand

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1983P& H356

..... which prescribed the appellate and the revisional authorities under both the statutes. this is best highlighted by juxtaposing the material parts of the two provisions :--east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949. haryana urban (control of rent and eviction) act, 1973. s. 15(1)(a). the state government may, by a general or special order, by notification confer on such officers and authorities ..... terms provided that an appeal shall lie from every order of the controller made under the said act. similarly, s. 31 of the madhya pradesh accommodation control (amendment) act, 1965 and section 22 of the rajasthan premises (control of rent and eviction) act, 1950 in express terms provide an appeal from every order or decree passed by the court respectively. ..... it would thus be plain that wherever the legislature wishes to make any and every order of the rent controller or of the rent court as ..... dismal failure and indeed boomeranged somewhat disastrously. the statesman like decision was taken by the government and implemented by enacting the haryana urban (control of rent and eviction) amendment act, 1978, which whilst making other amendments in the statute put the clock completely back in this respect. this is evident from the following relevant part of the statement of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 2005 (SC)

Atma Ram Vs. Shakuntala Rani

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2005SC3753; 123(2005)DLT127(SC); 2005(85)DRJ244; JT2005(8)SC104; RLW2005(4)SC2469; (2005)7SCC211

..... this court in mangat rai and anr. v. kidar nath and ors. : : [1981]1scr476. that case arose under the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949. the tenant had deposited the entire rent due in the court of the senior sub judge, ludhiana under section 31 of the punjab act. in view of the deposit made the tenant claimed protection under the proviso to section 13(2)(i) of ..... rai (supra) did not: agree with that view and held that section 31 of the indebtedness act applied even to a tenant who owed money to his landlord by way of rent due. their lordships construed the provisions of section 13(2)(i) of the punjab urban rent act and held that under the proviso to the aforesaid section the tenant was required to deposit interest ..... the punjab urban rent act. the landlord in that case placed reliance on the decision of this court in shri vidya prachar trust v. pandit basant ram : : [1970]1scr66 and contended ..... v. ganpat lal and anr. : : air1996sc729 this court was concerned with a provision of the rajasthan premises (control of rent and eviction) act, 1950. section 19-a thereof provided that a tenant may, apart from personal payment of rent to the landlord, remit or deposit rent by any of the modes, namely : (a) he may remit the whole amount by postal order ; (b) he may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 2009 (SC)

The State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2010SC722; JT2009(11)SC344; 2009(11)SCALE794; (2009)9SCC772:2009(5)LH(SC)3354

..... or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section, or in pursuance of an order made under section 13 of the punjab urban rent restriction act, 1947, as subsequently amended.33. having thus taken note of the two provisions, the court arrived at the inevitable conclusion as follows:the expression `tenant' includes `a tenant continuing in ..... (private) ltd. v. anandji kalyanji pedhi : (1964) 4 scr 892 (arising under bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates control act, 1947) and jagdish chander chatterjee v. sri kishan : (1973) 1 scr 850 arising under the rajasthan premises (control of rent and eviction) act, 1950. a three-judge bench of this court rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellants. ..... execution of a decree made against him. the appellant was an advocate and thus belonged to a `scheduled' class of tenants whose dwellings enjoyed special protection under the east punjab rent restriction act, 1949. in a suit filed by the respondent-landlord for recovery of possession of the demised premises the appellant entered into a compromise and agreed to vacate the ..... as follows:before proceeding further we consider it necessary to observe that there has been definite shift in the court's approach while interpreting the rent control legislations. an analysis of the judgments of 1950s to early 1990s would indicate that in majority of cases the courts heavily leaned in favour of an interpretation which would benefit the tenant- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 1968 (SC)

Keshavlal Jethalal Shah Vs. Mohanlal Bhagwandas and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1968SC1336; (1968)GLR868(SC); [1968]3SCR623

..... 1956 under s. 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949. an appeal was provided under s. 15 of the act from the order of the rent controller, and sub-s. (4) of s. 15 provided that the decision of the appellate authority, and subject only to such decision, the order of the controller shall be final. by amending act 29 of 1956 which came into force ..... in no sense be a vested or accrued right', and therefore notwithstanding the declared finality of the judgment of the controller under the evacuee property urban rent restriction act, 1947, when the petition for ejectment was filed, the act having been amended, the high court invested with revisional jurisdiction by s. 15(5) was competent to revise the order of the controller. this court observed ..... custodian had become final under the patiala evacuee (administration of property) ordinance, its finality could not be affected retrospectively under s. 58(3) of the administration of evacuee property act, 1950 which replaced the ordinance. the court distinguished the observations made in indira sohan lal's case(2). another judgment to which our attention was invited is moti ram v. suras ..... it became final on that account. the order was however set aside by the custodian in exercise of jurisdiction under s. 58(3) of the administration of evacuee property act 31 of 1950. this court held that since the order had become final in exercise of the jurisdiction subsequently conferred, in the absence of any positive indication giving s. 58(3) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 1988 (SC)

Brij Sunder Kapoor Vs. I Additional District Judge and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1989SC572; JT1988(4)SC529; 1988(2)SCALE1418; (1989)1SCC561; [1988]Supp3SCR558

..... achieve.we are of the view that in issuing the notification dated january 24, 1974 and thereby extending the east punjab urban rent restriction act to the ambala cantonment retrospectively with effect from january 26, 1950, the central government exercised a power not available to it when it issued the notification dated november 21, 1969. the contention that the issue of the notification of january 24, ..... , also a case concerned with notifications under section 3 of act xlvi of 1957. in exercise of this power the central government issued on 21-11-1969 a notification extending the east punjab rent restriction act, 1949, to cantonments in the state of punjab and haryana subsequently, after the amendment of section 3 of act xlvi of 1957 by act 22 of 1972, another notification was issued on 24-1 ..... -1974, superseding the earlier notification and extending the east punjab act afresh to cantonments in the state of punjab and haryana with a modification of section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1954 (HC)

Madho Ram Vaid Vs. Dr. Manohar Lal

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1955HP41

..... acting as an appellate authority under the east punjab urban rent restriction act, as applied to himachal pradesh. the petition bears court-fee stamps of rs. 2/-. there is an office objection to the effect that the petition should bear court-fees of rs. 10/- under article 22 of schedule ii of the court-fees (himachal pradesh amendment) act ..... east punjab rent restriction act, as applied to himachal pradesh. it is true that the petition arises out of proceedings under the east punjab urban rent restriction act, but that would not necessarily convert this into an application for relief under that act. as was held in--'pitman's shorthand academy v. b. lila ram and sons', air 1950 ep 181 (a): 'the rent controller and the appellate authority appointed under punjab urban rent restriction act ..... , 1947, do not constitute civil courts subordinate to the appellate jurisdiction of the high court, and therefore their orders are not subject to revision by the high court.' therefore, this court cannot in its revisional jurisdiction grant any relief, under the punjab urban rent restriction act ..... pradesh exercises jurisdiction in relation to the whole of the territories of himachal pradesh. the rent controller and the district judge exercising jurisdiction under the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949, as extended to himachal pradesh, are certainly tribunals, if not courts, and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2005 (HC)

Jamal Vs. Nafeesu

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2005(2)KLT53

..... 21, 1969 the east punjab urban rent restriction act became a law operating in the cantonment. section 3(2) of the cantonments (extension of rent control laws) act, 1957 speaks of 'the commencement of this act'. apex court in paragraph 13 of the judgment states that the words 'this act' refer to the principal act in which section 3(2) is inserted by virtue of the amendment, and that act, by virtue of ..... section 2(2) as amended, must be deemed to have come into force on january, 26, 1950. section 3(2) was added in ..... the principal act and it provided:the extension of any enactment under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 2007 (HC)

Ramvilas Bajaj Vs. Ashok Kumar and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(4)ALD137; 2007(4)ALT348; AIR2007NOC2064(FB)(AP)

..... section or in pursuance of an order made under section 13 of the punjab urban rent restriction act 1947. this section and section 10(1) of the a.p. act are similar in effect notwithstanding a slight variation in the language. before the written statement was filed by the tenant, east punjab urban rent restriction act 1949 was amended by amending act 29 of 1956 on 24-9-1956. section 13(3)(a)(iii ..... cited across the bar.37. in moti ram's case (supra), proceedings for eviction were instituted not before the civil court but before the rent controller, the designated authority under the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949. the question as to whether an amendment to the rent control legislation ousted the jurisdiction of the civil court, to execute a decree of eviction passed prior to the ..... ) of the act as it stood on the date of the application filed by the landlord provided that a landlord may apply to the rent controller for an order directing the tenant to put the ..... can be shown the provision which takes away the jurisdiction is itself subject to the implied saving of the litigant's right. 'in janardan reddy v. the state 1950 scr 940 kania c. in delivering the judgment of the court observed that our constitution is generally speaking prospective in its operation and is not to have retroactive operation .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //