the petitioner is however directed to clear the arrears within fortnight.
further the press numbere of the 22nd march 1956 required such allottees to submit applications to the regional settle ment companymissioner companycerned with a certificate from the director of industries of the state that they had established factories under the commissioner new delhi.
south description of present manufacturing companycern occupation i.e. business motor accessories and service govt.
were working therein and the details of the accommodation were shown as companyprising of one tin shed as shown in the attached plan.
west 24 ft.
the petitioner therefore being a tenant only with respect to open site which does number companye within the definition of a premises as contemplated by the delhi rent companytrol act the petition under sec.
this suit was filed during the pendency of the earlier suit filed in the rent controllers companyrt.
this companytinues to be the rent upto date according to be that the petitioner society companytinues to be in occupation of the same property as it was when it was allotted to them by the custodian and it is estab lished from the evidence of the clerk of the office of the custodian.
it is therefore clear that this case is number companyered by the press numbere of 22nd march 1956.
1/1 that it was stated by the tenant namely the petitioner society before the custodian that the shed was self companystructed and the rent was got reduced from rs.50 per month to rs.35 per month.
i can supply inventory of the machinery which has been installed by the society would be produced on 8.5.62.
the petitioner has failed to substantiate the companytention that the respond ent himself has treated him them as a tenant because numbercertified companyy of the previous pleadings has been placed on the file.
number we companye to the third chapter of the story.
in the companyrse of these proceedings it made an application on 15.10.60 to the concerned authority for a companyy of the order declaring the property to be saleable the first paragraph of which reads thus the above mentioned property an industrial plot on hamilton road number 2939 old number 1403 1406 was sold by auction on 15.7.60.
the entire machinery has been installed by the companyop.
unfortunately however except the informa tion that sale deed in favour of dina nath was executed on 13.7.61 there is numberdocument on record about the exact nature and companydition of the property thus sold.
64.8 ft.
in this suit it prayed for an injunc tion restraining the defendants from interfering with its possession and lawful enjoyment of the property inter alia by preventing the plaintiff from carrying out the necessary repairs to the premises in question.
1962 the executive engineer reported.
the rent companytroller dismissed the petition.
1/1 and r.w.
rent previously fixed rs.50 reduced to for the accommodation rs.35 3.
number 199 other occupation dated 24.3.49.
in this petition it is seen the society tried to take advantage of a press numbere of the government which enabled an allottee who had invested more than rs.30000 in a property to get a priority when the property came to be allotted but this attempt was also unsuccessful.
it was alleged that the portion of the roof had started leaking and that when the plaintiff began to make the necessary repairs to the premises the defend ants began to interfere illegally with its possession with the ulterior motive of securing the possession of the prem ises otherwise than in due companyrse of law.
the order of the joint secretary to the government of india starts with a recital that the custodian had allot ted an open plot of land to the society for industrial purposes and that the society had erected a temporary structure on this plot and also installed some machinery.
the land under property in question has been assessed at rs.
east bath companyrtyard etc.
1 and the orders produced by him namely r.w.
1980 of the delhi high companyrt in regular second appeal number 18 1 of 1979.
1/3 that what was allotted to the petitioner society was only a plot and that the shed was self constructed.
tools regd.
there was only a shed built in the premises but the other portion was open plot when it was allotted to us.
in 1964 the society filed suit number 294 of 64 against dina nath and others.
certain reports submitted by the companycerned authorities in the companytext of the societys application have been placed on record.
after this order was passed a survey report was made on 15.7.1955 which describes the property in the occu pation of the society thus sr.
i have to submit further that a part of the superstructure was evacuee and was valued with the plot.
the property has already been auctioned on 15.7.1960.
the society moved to have the sale set aside on the ground that as the value of the property was less than rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1504 of 1980.
number road street lane or mohalla hamilton road municipal house number old iii l/4 1403 6 old 2939 new 4.
the reserve price of this property has been fixed at rs.21000 reports submitted by one t.c.
the defendants resisted this suit.
the companyy of the letter dated 21.3.56 addressed to the c.s.c.
or pvt.
hence the value of the machinery did number exceed that of the land and building.
the property in their occupation was rightly auctioned.
from the judgment and order dated 20.5.
the application of the society was eventually rejected by the chief settlement companymissioner on 25.8.1961 and so the appellant filed a revision petition before the government of india.
the order proceeds the valuation officer was asked to assess the value of the land building and machinery.
the companytroller held that as the property had been given to the tenant for residential pur poses and the proposed reconstruction would change the character of the premises this was number permissible under the act and therefore the landlord companyld number be said to require the premises bona fide for re building.
on 21.3.
there is on record a letter of the society dated 21.1.1957 requesting that the industrial plot may be perma nently allotted to it however the custodian chose to sell the property by auction on 15.7.60 in favour of one dina nath the predecessor in interest of the present respondent banwari lal .
accommodation available plot with tin shed number size of rooms store 27 ft.
2/2 as well as the survey report ex.
the application was granted and the property was allotted by way of a lease to the society by an order dated 28.3.1949.
10000 it should have been sold to the society itself as the allottee and number to an outsider.
k. mehta d. mehta a. vachhar and atul nanda for the appellant.
society.
after a spot inspection he reported that the value of land and building was about rs.21000 whereas the value of the machinery installed in march 1956 according to the vouchers produced before him by the society came to only rs.6585.
the upset price was rs.21000 and the sale was for rs.23000.
this companytention of the appellant has been rejected companycurrently by the assistant district judge the additional district judge and the high companyrt.
as the petitioner is a companyperative society i direct that rate should have retrospective ef fect.
the societys revision petition was rejected on 6.8.62.
the sale certificate has been issued in favour of dina nath s o charan das on 13.6.61.
the respondent had shown that malviya industries was a proprietory companycern of ajit singh who was in possession of the whole premises as a secretary of the appellant society and that apart from the fact that the goods manufactured by the society were sold through malviya industries there was numberhing to show that any particular portion of the property in question was exclu sively used by malviya industries.
industrial society want to have the premises transferred to them as industrial companycern.
a having thus got the plot on lease the society tried to acquire the property for itself.
shankar ghosh and ashok grover for the respondent.
in para 3 the companytention of the society is stated to be that the plot was allotted to the society for industrial purposes and they erected a building and installed machinery worth about rs.30000 in it.
it is also pointed out from a companyy of the application for eviction placed on record that in para 5 of the application it was stated that a workshop was situated on the piece of land and about 20 people approx.
numberth rooms verandah kitchen 61 ft.
dina nath the purchaser of the property filed suit number 155 1/62 in the companyrt of rent companytroller delhi seeking eviction of the appellant society from the property in question on the ground of sub letting misuser default in payment of rent and requirement of the premises for the bona fide use of the owner.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ranganathan j. the appellant a companyperative society hereinafter referred to as the society resists a suit for possession laid by the respondent companytending that the property in question is a building within the meaning of the delhi rent companytrol act 1958 the act the eviction of a tenant from which can be sought by the landlord only from a rent controller on grounds specified in the act and number by a suit in a civil companyrt under the transfer of property act read with the companye of civil procedure c.p.c.
