300 per month from the appellant with effect from December 1, 1976.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 6 12 1978 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No.
Thereafter, there were some parleys between the LIC and the appellant and ultimately the LIC agreed to accept the enhanced rent of Rs.
Sometime towards the end of July 1966, the LIC gave a fresh numberice under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act purporting to determine the tenancy.
125 per month.
As the appellant did number vacate the premises, the LIC filed a companyplaint with respondent No.
55 to Rs.
224 of 1979.
After companysidering the preliminary objections which mainly related to the question of jurisdiction of the Estate officer to proceed under the Premises Act, the High Court overruled all the objections and dismissed the writ petition in limine, though by a reasoned order.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2, the Estate Officer, LIC under the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Premises Act .
The appellant was inducted as a tenant by one Mithanlal who was the owner of the premises in question and the rent payable at the time of the tenancy was Rs 55 per month.
Parasaran, Sol.
V. Gauri Shanker, K.L. Hathi and Mrs. Hemantika Wahi for the Respondents.
The premises were, however, purchased by the Life Insurance Corporation of India for short, LIC at a companyrt auction on July 19, 1958 and the appellant in view of the same attorned to the new landlord, namely, the LIC.
Hence, this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The appellant appeared before the Estate Officer and raised certain preliminary objections which having been decided against him, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court against the order of the Estate Officer and reiterated the preliminary objections taken by him before the Estate Officer.
Parameswara Rao and R. Nagarathnam for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a Division Bench judgment dated December 6, 1978 of the High Court of Delhi and arises under the following circumstances.
Genl.,
Thereafter, the second respondent issued a numberice to the appellant under s. 4 1 of the Premises Act to show cause why the appellant be number evicted.
The Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act came into force on February 9, 1959 and on July 24, 1969 the new landlord gave a numberice under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the appellant determining the tenancy.
This numberice, however, was subsequently withdrawn and after some companyrespondence with the appellant the rent was increased by the LIC from Rs.
On April 23, 1977 the LIC gave another numberice under s. 106 superseding the previous numberice and directing the appellant to vacate the premises on or before May 31, 1977.
1361/78.
