the matter was thus heard by a division bench companyposed of g. d. khosla and dulat jj.
the companymittee raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the aforesaid applications on the ground that there was numberrelationship of landlord and tenant between the applicants and the committee within the meaning of the act.
k. daphtary solicitor general of india r. ganapathi iyer and g. gopalakrishnaa for the respondents.
the allottees occupied the shops and the premises in accordance with the allotments made by the companymittee and continued to pay the respective amounts which may be characterised as rents without prejudice to our decision on the question whether it was legally a rent because as will presently appear one of the companytroversies between the parties is whether it is rent within the meaning of the act.
the high companyrt also negatived the companytention that the companymittee was estopped from questioning the status of the applicants as tenants having all along admittedly accepted rent from them.
the learned subordinate judge who dealt with these cases in the first instance came to the companyclusion that the several applicants were tenants within the meaning of the act and that therefore the applications were companypetent.
appeals from the judgment and order dated april 25 1956 of the punjab high companyrt in civil revision applications number.
133 1 c of the companystitution is whether the provisions of s. 8 of the delhi and ajmer rent control act 38 of 1952 which hereinafter will be referred to as the act apply to the transactions in question between the appellants in each case and the new delhi municipal committee which for the sake of tee brevity we shall call the companymittee in the companyrse of this judgment .
186 187 and 203 of 1954.
the committee moved the high companyrt in its revisional jurisdiction and the learned chief justice sitting singly referred those cases to be heard by a division bench as they raised questions of general importance.
the certificates of the high companyrt are dated october 28 1957.
the high companyrt by its judgment dated april 25 1956 set aside the aforesaid finding of the trial companyrt but made numberorder as to companyts.
30 to 32 of 1959.
the appellants moved the high court and obtained the necessary certificates of fitness for coming up in appeal to this companyrt.
135 8 0 to rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
that is how the matter has companye before this companyrt.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sinha c. j. the question for determination in these three appeals on certificates of fitness granted by the high court of punjab under art.
on receipt of tenders the highest bidders were allotted various shops on rents varying from es.
towards the end of 1952 30 of the occupants filed applications under s. 8 of the act praying for the fixation of standard rent in respect of the premises in their respective occupation.
it is necessary to state the following facts in order to bring out the nature and scope of the companytroversy.
the trial companyrt accordingly framed the following issue for determination in the first instance whether the relationship of tenant and landlord exists between the parties therefore those applications are companypetent and the court has jurisdiction to fix the standard rent?
september 13.
in april 1945 the companymittee in pursuance of a resolution passed by it invited tenders from intending bidders for those shops and premises.
c. setalvad attorney general for india anumberp singh and r. gopalakrishnan for the appellants.
520 per mensem.
