Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the jharkhand government premises allotment rent recovery and eviction act 2002 Page 1 of about 9 results (0.028 seconds)

Oct 06 2016 (HC)

Amrendra Kumar Sinha Vs. Forest

Court : Jharkhand

..... dated 15.03.2016, wherein the government premises (allotment, rent, recovery and eviction) act, 1956 which has been adopted by the state of jharkhand in the name of jharkhand government premises (allotment, rent, recovery and eviction) act, 2002 has been annexed as annexure-9 of the writ application. he further submitted that a rule has been framed under section 14 of the jharkhand government premises (allotment, rent, recovery and eviction) act, 2002 and the said act is known as sarkari awas avantan ..... kiraya vasooli avam bedakhli niymavali, 2004, wherein the provisions have been laid down for allotment, rent, recovery and eviction of the unauthorized occupatnts of government premises. ..... learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the definition of penal rent has been defined and none of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 2017 (HC)

Ramanuj Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Court : Jharkhand

..... comes under the purview of violation of the terms of the agreement and as per clause 16 of the agreement, the petitioner was liable for eviction 8 through the process of the bihar (now jharkhand) government premises (allotment, rent, recovery and eviction) act, 1956. it was not the case of the petitioner before the respondent nos. 3 and 4 that the respondent no.5 was an unknown ..... 2006, the allotment of the petitioner's shop was cancelled and vide order dated 20.09.2006, he was directed to vacate the shop premises within a week.7. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent no.3 is contrary to the provision of section 4 of the bihar (jharkhand) government premises (rent, recovery and eviction) act, 1956. ..... the order of eviction has been passed against the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing. the petitioner has never sub-let the shop in question to any person. the ..... terms of this agreement.16. that, in case of violation of this agreement made by the tenant, the occupant of the premises (detailed below in the schedule) will be subject to eviction through the process of the bihar act 20 of 1956 and the remaining part of the contribution money deposited by the tenant will be forfeited. 14. on perusal .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 2016 (HC)

Gopal Prasad Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors

Court : Jharkhand

..... 's grievance to be genuine and hence did not take any action for vacating the quarters. the residential quarters allotted to him by the respondent company was not cancelled. the respondent authorities did not initiate any proceeding under the public premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) act, 1972. 4 thus, the petitioner was never declared to be an unauthorized occupant during his entire service tenure ..... kerala and ors vs. m. padmanabhan nair reported in (1985) 1 scc 429 in para 1 that .pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decision of this court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement ..... .3.2010 where in exercise of the powers conferred under sub section (2) of section 14 of the administrative tribunal act, 1985(13 of 1985), the central government has specified the organization to which sub section (3) of section 14 of the aforesaid act will apply, and in the schedule attached at serial 2 no. 201 is the steel authority of india ltd ..... / @ 6% interest and to refund the same to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving of a copy of this order, their liberty for recovery of penal rent from the petitioner after noticing him and furnishing complete details to the petitioner remaining intact . (ratnaker bhengra, j.) jharkhand high court, ranchi dated 20 5 2016, nafr/sd .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2007 (HC)

A.M. Prabhakaran and ors. Vs. Chithappa Sulaikabi

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ109; AIR2007NOC1100(SB)

..... the act, it is also necessary to analyse various provisions of the rent act. section 11(1) provides that a tenant shall be evicted only in accordance with the provisions of the rent act. first proviso to section 11(1) exempts buildings belonging to state government from the application of the provisions of the rent act. ..... period of tenancy, but to a class of tenants with reference to a definite date of commencement of continuous occupation of the tenanted premises. such a classification with such reasonable nexus is with the object of conferring a benefit, privilege or protection to a definite class of ..... air2005sc294 etc. it is for the legislature to amend the law and not the court vide state of jharkhand and anr. v. govind singh : air2005sc294 . in jinia keotin v. k.s. manjhi : [2002]supp5scr689 , this court observed:the court cannot legislate...under the garb of interpretation....hence there should be ..... court in raghunath raj bareja v. punjab national bank 2006 air scw 6446, while interpreting section 31 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, has marshalled the decisions on literal interpretation exhaustively and explained the said concept in the following words:39. in ..... regarding re-construction. third proviso deals with the option of a tenant to have the reconstructed building allotted to him. section 11(4)(v) confers a right on the landlord to evict a tenant who ceases to occupy the building for six months without reasonable cause. sub-section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 2011 (HC)

Mohd. Zafar Khan V. District Judge Hardoi

Court : Allahabad

..... no details in respect to the property has been mentioned by his clients in the allotment application. so the said allotment application is meaningless as per the relevant provisions as provided for allotment of a premises under the rent control act and on the basis of the same it cannot be said that tenant/petitioner made ..... release is wholly incorrect and wrong argument because the provisions of rule 16 (1) (d) of uttar pradesh urban buildings (regulation of letting, rent and eviction) act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) applies only in respect to residential buildings and the rule 16(1)(d) does not deal with ..... director general telecommunication and anr. v. t.n. peethambaram: (1987)illj438sc , came to the conclusion that it was not open to the state government to reduce the minimum qualifying marks in general english and the seats made available to sc/st candidates by virtue of the said relaxation would revert ..... a question of self-discipline which court should observe.37. in the case of lilawati agarwal (dead) by lrs and others v. state of jharkhand, (2008) 15 scc 464, wherein it is held that if a coordinate bench disagree with a law already held by a coordinate bench then the ..... again proceeded to consider the judgement of australian high court and views of lord steyn in a case reported in . r v. national asylum support service, 2002 (4) all er 654 (page 35) is as under:as rightly pointed out by the high court of australia, "the modern approach to statutory interpretation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2018 (SC)

Justice k.s.puttaswamy(retd) Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... data repository (cidr). the former part of the legislative design is implemented by its regulatory provisions governing enrolment53 of individuals who would be allotted a unique identity number. the latter part of the legislative design consists of the process of authentication ..... . for answering the above issue we need to advert to the objects and scheme of the prevention of money laundering act, 2002(pmla, 2002). the scheme as delineated by the prevention of money laundering (maintenance of records) rules, 2005 also need to be ..... with over a billion aadhaar cards being distributed, some states report authentication failures: estimates include 49 percent failure rates for jharkhand, 6 percent for gujarat, 5 percent for krishna district in andhra pradesh and 37 percent for rajasthan. failure to ..... premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971 was enacted, which validated all actions taken under the act of 1958. the constitutional validity of the 1971 act was also challenged. section 20 of the later act provided: notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, anything done or any action taken (including rules or orders made, notices issued, evictions ordered or effected, damages assessed, rents ..... slide 30). it was further pointed out that the authority has taken appropriate pro-active protection measures, which included disaster recovery plan, data backup and availability and media response plan (slide 31). the respondents also pointed out that all security principles .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2013 (HC)

Delhi High Court Bar Association and anr Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and ...

Court : Delhi

..... with amendments to the state.256. the provisions of the bombay rent act were repugnant to the provisions of public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971, a central act. the letters of the state addressed to the government of india containing the proposals for obtaining the assent of the president ..... centre for court expenditure. all that we have is an insignificant ?centrally sponsored scheme for courts prepared by the planning commission which allots some monies w.p.(c)no.4770/2012 page 374 of 531 for each state on population basis. xxx further, the present ..... minimal responsibility towards ensuring an adequate and efficacious justice dispensation system before it can look towards court fee as a form of cost recovery from the litigants.826. critical areas of justice administration thus remain in unplanned categories of the state s financial planning. the ..... a plethora of judgments including air1955bombay 35 basantlal banarsilal v. bansilal dagdulal; (1985) 3 scc661gram panchayat of village jamalpur v. malwinder singh &ors.; (2002) 8 scc182kaiser-ihind pvt. ltd. v. national textile corporation (maharashtra north) ltd. &ors.; (2009) 5 scc342grand kakatiya sheraton hotel and towers employees ..... us.171. in support of this submission, reliance is placed on the pronouncement of the jharkhand high court reported at 2012 law suit (jhar) 482, kiran manjhi v. state of jharkhand & ors., state of jharkhand & ors. v. sur singh hasda. in this case, the court had observed thus .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2013 (HC)

Delhi High Court Bar Association and anr. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi an ...

Court : Delhi

..... with amendments to the state.256. the provisions of the bombay rent act were repugnant to the provisions of public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971, a central act. the letters of the state addressed to the government of india containing the proposals for obtaining the assent of the president ..... centre for court expenditure. all that we have is an insignificant ?centrally sponsored scheme for courts prepared by the planning commission which allots some monies w.p.(c)no.4770/2012 page 374 of 531 for each state on population basis. xxx further, the present ..... minimal responsibility towards ensuring an adequate and efficacious justice dispensation system before it can look towards court fee as a form of cost recovery from the litigants.826. critical areas of justice administration thus remain in unplanned categories of the state s financial planning. the ..... a plethora of judgments including air1955bombay 35 basantlal banarsilal v. bansilal dagdulal; (1985) 3 scc661gram panchayat of village jamalpur v. malwinder singh &ors.; (2002) 8 scc182kaiser-ihind pvt. ltd. v. national textile corporation (maharashtra north) ltd. &ors.; (2009) 5 scc342grand kakatiya sheraton hotel and towers employees ..... us.171. in support of this submission, reliance is placed on the pronouncement of the jharkhand high court reported at 2012 law suit (jhar) 482, kiran manjhi v. state of jharkhand & ors., state of jharkhand & ors. v. sur singh hasda. in this case, the court had observed thus .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 2006 (HC)

S.S. Mishra and anr. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : [2006(3)JCR509(Jhr)]

..... the petitioner no. 1. the estate officer ordered the eviction. the order of eviction came to be challenged before the appellate forum and in civil revision before the high court. however, petitioner ..... a request for allotment of the quarter under his occupation in the name of petitioner no. 2 vide his application dated 28th january, 1991. prayer of the petitioner was refused. however, petitioners remained in occupation of the quarter no. 3-a/91 d type. the respondent no. 1 company initiated eviction proceedings under the provisions of public premises (eviction of unauthorized occupancy) act, 1971 against ..... by the respondents that h.r.a. has not been paid to the petitioner no. 2 from the date of his joining of service on 18th september, 1992. since recovery is being made from the petitioner no. 1, petitioner no. 2, who has a different identity and separate employment in the respondent-company cannot be denied the house ..... rent allowance. respondents have taken a categorical stand that one quarter was allotted to the petitioner no. 2 in the year 1992 and thereafter in the year 2002. however, he did not occupy the same for considerable period. it was only in the year 2005 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2008 (HC)

Raj Kumar Gupta and Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs. Birendra Prasad Gupta

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR686

..... would like to quote section 14 which was for the first time introduced in 1982 act. section 14 reads as under:14. special procedure for disposal of cases for eviction on ground of bonafide requirement - (1) every suit by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (c) or (e) of sub-section (1) of section ..... by he has ordered for eviction of the petitioner from the building premises under section 18(3) of the said act.4. the facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.petitioners were inducted as tenants in the shop premises for a fixed period of ten years commencing from 1.5.1992 to 30.4.2002 on a monthly rent of rs. 900/-. a registered ..... to the landlord within a week of the receipt of the notice, either allot the building to any other servant of the government whom the district magistrate thinks suitable subject to the payment of rent, and the observance of the conditions of the tenancy by such servant of the government or direct that the landlord shall be put in possession of the building:provided ..... shall follow the practice and procedure of a court of small causes including the recording of evidence:(8) no appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made in accordance with procedure specified in this section:provided that on an application being made within sixty days of the date of the order of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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