Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the east punjab urban rent restriction amendment act 1966 Page 1 of about 394 results (0.072 seconds)

Jan 12 1993 (SC)

Gulraj Singh Grewal Vs. Dr Harbans Singh and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1993SC1574; JT1993(1)SC146; (1993)103PLR410; 1993(1)SCALE109; (1993)2SCC68; [1993]1SCR149

..... the order of discharge or dismissal made against him by the landlord.14. thereafter, the east punjab urban rent restriction (amendment) act, 1966 (punjab act no. 8 of 1966) further amended section 13 of the principal act as under: -2. amendment of section 13 of punjab act 3 of 1949, - in section 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949, -(1) in sub-section (3), -(a) after sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a), the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted ..... the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1940 which repealed the 1947 act and replaced it. the same scheme was retained in the 1940 act which is the principal act for our purpose. it is the relevant provisions of this act, as amended from time to time, which are material for deciding the point raised by the appellant.10. the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 (east punjab act no. 111 of 1940) was amended by the amendment acts of 1956, 1957, 1966 ..... and 1985 whereby section 13 of the principal act was amended and in 1985 the new section 13a was inserted. it is the amendments made in section 19 of the principal act providing for eviction of tenants which are material for our purposes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 1977 (HC)

Tralok Chand and anr. Vs. Arjun Singh and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1978HP2

..... in section 28 thereof which is in the following terms:-- '28. (1) the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 as amended from time to time as in force in the areas comprised in himachal pradesh immediately before 1st november, 1966 and the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 as amended from time to time in its application to the areas added to himachal pradesh under section ..... 5 of the punjab reorganisation act, 1966 are hereby repealed.(2) notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said acts pending, at the commencement of this act, before any court or ..... as a tenant in view of the provisions contained in section 4 of the himachal pradesh rent control act, 1971. when the suit was filed the parties were governed by the provisions of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949. under the provisions of that act, neither the legal representatives, nor the widow of the deceased statutory tenant, had any right ..... to pass a decree for ejectment arose with reference to the provisions of east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1940, section 13 of which is similar to section 14 of the himachal pradesh act. mahajan j. speaking for the court observed that section 13 (1) of the punjab act did not affect the jurisdiction of the court to pass a decree for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 1974 (HC)

P.L. Morada Vs. S.D. Bakshi

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1974HP57

..... reasoning put forward by the learned counsel, it would be proper to extract section 28:'28 (1) the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 as amended from time to time as in force in the areas comprised in himachal pradesh immediately before 1st november, 1966, and the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 as amended from time to time in its application to the areas added to himachal pradesh under section 5 of ..... the punjab reorganisation act, 1966 are hereby repealed.(2) notwithstanding such repeal all suits and other proceedings under the said acts pending at the commencement of this act, before any court or other authority shall ..... objections of one major (retired) p. l. morada, tenant of grange villa, simla in execution of an order of eviction passed against him by the rent controller simla, in a petition under section 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 have been dismissed. the case appears to have some chequered history. sometime in 1970 shri s. d. bakshi landlord of grange villa filed a .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 1988 (HC)

Ramesh Birch and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1988P& H281

..... the punjab reorganisation act. 1966(act no. 31 of 1966) have extended to the union territory of chandigarh the east punjab urban rent restriction (amendment) act. 1983, (punjab act 2 of 1985) as in force in the state of punjab at the date of the notification subject to the modifications mentioned in the said notification. this amendment act 2 of 1985, which was extended to the union territory of chandigarh incorporated section 13-a in the east punjab urban rent restriction act 3 ..... territory of punjab on the relevant date, the central government had no jurisdiction to. in exercise ..... . section 87 of the punjab reorganisation act, 1966, authorises the central government to extend to the union territory of chandigarh only such enactments as were in existence on the date (1-11-1966) on which the act was enforced. both the east punjab urban rent restriction act (punjab act 2 of 1985) and the indian stamp (punjab amendment) act, 1981, were enacted much after november 1, 1966. as none of these two acts were in force in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 1989 (SC)

Ramesh Birch and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1990SC560; JT1989(2)SC483; 1989Supp(1)SCC430; [1989]2SCR629

..... on 15-12-1986 by the central government under section 87 of the punjab reorganisation act (act of parliament no. 31 of 1966), hereinafter referred to as 'the reorganisation act'. by this notification, the central government purported to extend to the union territory of chandigarh - hereinafter referred to also as 'chandigarh' - the provisions of the east punjab urban rent restriction (amendment) act, 1985 (punjab act 2 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1985 ..... act), as it was in force in the state of punjab at the date of the notification ..... and subject to the modifications mentioned in the said notification. the punjab and haryana high court by its judgment in ramesh birch v. union .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2005 (SC)

Rakesh Vij Vs. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2005SC3593; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN37; JT2005(12)SC1; (2005)141PLR676; 2005(8)SCALE11

..... .'the aforesaid 1949 act was amended by the east punjab urban rent restriction (amendment) act, 1956 (for short 'amendment act, 1956'), which was published in gazette on 24.9.1956 and the provisions thereof, which are relevant for the decision of the present case, are being reproduced below:'2. amendment of section 13 of east punjab act iii of 1949. - in clause (a) of sub section (3) of section 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949, hereinafter referred ..... he required it for his own use.6. as a result of reorganization of the state of punjab by punjab reorganization act, 1966, chandigarh was carved out as a union territory with effect from 1.11.1966. the central government issued a notification on 13.10.1972 by which east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 was made applicable to the union territory of chandigarh with effect from 4.11.1972 ..... .12. section 2 of the chandigarh extension act defines the words 'the act' as the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 as it is extended to, and was in force in certain areas in the pre-reorganization state of punjab immediately before the first day of november, 1966. in view of section 3 of the chandigarh extension act 'the act', which would mean the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 as extended to and was in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 2011 (HC)

Asha Chawla and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

adarsh kumar goel, a.c.j. this petition seeks declaration that east punjab urban rent restriction (amendment) act, 2001 and notification dated 9.10.2009 issued by the central government under section 87 of the punjab reorganisation act, 1966 (for short, "the reorganisation act") extending the aforesaid amendment act to the union territory, chandigarh are unconstitutional. 2. case of the petitioners is that they are tenants in various residential and non-residential buildings in ..... the union territory, chandigarh and are facing eviction proceedings at the instance of different non-resident indian landlords of the respective buildings under section 13-b of the east punjab urban rent restriction act ..... , 1949 (for short, "the rent act") as extended to chandigarh vide east punjab urban rent restriction (extension to chandigarh) act, 1974, as amended vide the east punjab urban rent restriction (amendment) act, 2001 and extended to the union territory, chandigarh vide notification dated 9.10.2009. 3. the impugned statutory provision is as under .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 2002 (SC)

Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2002SC2256; 2002(4)ALD24(SC); JT2002(Suppl1)SC219; (2002)2PLR625; 2002(4)SCALE560; (2002)5SCC397; [2002]3SCR1078

..... directly the tenant to put the landlord in possession- xxx xxx xxx(ii) in the case of a non-residential building or rented land, if-(a) he requires it for his own use;4. incidentally, it may be mentioned that the east punjab urban rent restriction (amendment) act, 1956, by section 2 thereof deleted the words 'a non-residential building or' from the abovesaid provision. however, this ..... amendment was held ultra vires the constitution in harbilas rai bansal v. state of punjab and anr. - : air1996sc857 , and this court directed that as a consequence of ..... impugned judgment and was relied on by shri sudhir chandra, the learned senior counsel for the landlord-respondent. section 11(1)(h) of j & k houses and shops rent control act, 1966 provides for the tenant being evicted if the landlord requires the house for 'his own occupation'. the court held that the provision is meant for the benefit of the ..... landlord and therefore it must be so construed as to advance the object of the act. the word 'own occupation' contemplates the actual possession of the landlord whether for his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 24 1993 (HC)

Ruli Ram (Deceased) Through L.R. and ors. Vs. Amar Singh

Court : Himachal Pradesh

..... enactments were pan materia with those of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 as also of the delhi rent control act, 1958, which came up for consideration in ..... the instant case is one but separate rent specified for two portions, namely, one for residence and the other for shop. at the relevant time when ruli ram was inducted as tenant, provisions of the punjab urban rent restriction act, 1947 with east punjab amendment act, 1948, were applicable and the same were repealed and substituted by the east punjab urban rent restriction act 1949. the provisions of both the ..... by the landlord was also repealed during the pendency of the litigation and was replaced by the himachal pradesh urban rent control act, 1987 (act no. 25 of 1987) (hereinafter called as 'the act'). the landlord also moved an application seeking amendment to the eviction petition so as to meet the requirement of law by taking up the ground and ..... and order eviction with respect to part thereof. similar view expressed by a division bench of the punjab high court in kanwar behari v. smt. vindhya devi air 1966 punj 481, while construing section 14(1)(e) of the delhi rent control act (59 of (1958), were approved and it held that in the absence of a specific .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1995 (SC)

Dahiben Widow of Ranchhodji Jivanji and Others Vs. Vasanji Kevalbhai ( ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1995SC226; (1995)97BOMLR234; (1996)1GLR272; JT1995(5)SC378; 1995(2)SCALE657; 1995Supp(2)SCC295; [1995]3SCR234

..... three-judge bench decision in motiram v. suraj bhans : [1960]2scr896 , in which though this court was concerned with the interpretation of beneficial statute like east-punjab urban rent restriction act, it was observed at page 903 that where an amendment affects the vested rights, the same would operate prospectively unless it is expressly made retrospective of the same follows as a matter of necessary implication.16 ..... lakshminarayana v. niranjan : [1985]2scr202 . in that case, some earlier decisions of this court on this point were noted, one of which was in the case of dayavati v. inderjeet : [1966]3scr275 , in which it was observed that if the new law speaks in language, which expressly or by clear intendment, takes in even pending matters, the court of appeal may ..... facts of the present case. according to the learned counsel for the respondents, what they have contended finds support from the decision in ishverlal thakorelal almaula v. motibhai nagjibhai bhai : [1966]1scr367 , in which this court approved the full bench decision of the bombay high court in shantilal v. somabhai ilr (1959) bom 577, (name of this case has been stated ..... 4. the defendant's case that despite what has been provided in section 88(1)(c) of the act, they continued to be protected tenants cannot be accepted in view of the constitution bench decision in s.n. ramble v. sholapur borough municipality : [1966]1scr618 . that decision specifically disapproved what was held by a three-judge bench of this court in .....

Tag this Judgment!


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