Sardari Lal Bhatia, for respondents Nos.
3a, 4, 5, 6 a, b, c, and 7 10.
As a result of this rule the sanction obtained by the petitioner lapsed and he had, therefore, to obtain fresh sanction if in companysequence of his success in the appeals before the Senior Sub Judge he still desired to demolish and reconstruct the building.
On December 8, 1956 the Civil Court in Delhi passed decrees in favour of the petitioner for the eviction of respondents 3 to 11.
The case has a human aspect and I disallow the execution of the decree against the tenants.
83 of 1959 .
The landlord has four or five other houses which he has let out on rent.
3 per mensem, and they have numbercomplaint to make about the companydition of their Kothries.
These appeals were finally disposed of against the tenant appellants, some on the merits and some by reason of abatement, by the end of October, 1957.
67, 87 and 130 of 1959.
130 of 1959 .
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petitions Nos.
Under the rules governing the companystruction of houses on plans sanctioned by the Delhi Municipal Com mittee, the sanctioned building had to be companypleted within a period of one year from the date of sanction.
S. Narula and S. S. Chadha, for the petitioners.
The reason assigned for the order was stated in these terms If the decree is allowed to be executed they will be thrown out and it will be impossible for them to get accommodation in the reconstructed building.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, B. Sen and T. Sen, for Respondents Nos.
67 of 1959 and 1, 2 and 4 In Petition No.
67 of 1959 Phool Chand .
They are all occupying only one Kothri each and paying rent at Rs.
April 21.
Thereafter the petitioner applied to the municipal authorities for sanctioning a building plan.
As stated earlier, the building plan approved by the municipality companyld permit only a building companysisting of one floor in which there were three living rooms and sanction for the companystruction of a building with such accommodation was granted.
Petitions under Art.
By order dated July 30, 1958 all these applications were dismissed.
D. Jain and K. L. Mehta, for the Intervener in Petition No.
S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No.
3 In Petn.
83 of 1959 1, 2 and 12 In Petition No.
1, 2 and 5 In petition No.
With this sanctioned plan, the petitioner renewed his application under s. 19 for permission to execute the decree of the Civil Court and evict the tenants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J. These three petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.
The petitioner Jyoti Pershad is the owner of a house in Delhi in which respondents 3 to 11 were tenants.
