Civil Law I

Delhi Judicial Service – 2005            
CIVIL LAW - I

Q.  1  (a)  Landlord filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against tenant on the ground that tenant neither paid nor tendered rent w.e.f. 5.9. 1996 till filing of the petition despite service of demand notice dated 28.1.1999.  The Rent Controller passed an order on 5.11.1999 under section15(1) of the Act directing the tenant to pay or deposit arrears of rent within one month and continue to pay or deposit future rent month by month by 15th of each succeeding month.  The tenant in pursuance of said order deposited rent in the court.  But rent was not deposited in strict compliance of the order under section 15(1).  Report of Nazir also revealed that tenant did not deposit rent month by month in strict compliance of order under section 15(1) and there were several defaults on part of the tenant.  Landlord did not file an application under section 15(7) of the Act; and withdrew the rent deposited by the tenant.
Landlord at the time of final hearing argued that tenant is not entitled for benefit under section 14(2) of the Act due to non-compliance of order under section 15(1).  Tenant argued that he could not be denied benefit of section 14(2) unless his defence was first struck out within the meaning of section 15(7) of the Act; and landlord by withdrawing/ accepting rent deposited in the Court despite certain delays deemed to have waived his right to evict him.  Decide whether tenant is entitled for benefit under section 14(2) of the Act.
(b)  Landlords/owner filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the tenant in respect of tenanted premises.  No written agreement was executed between the parties at the time of creation of tenancy.  The landlords owner stated that the purpose of letting was residential.  The tenant contested the eviction petition by filing an application for leave to defend eviction petition alleging that the purpose of letting was commercial.  He stated that since the inception of tenancy, he is running a Chinese Medical Clinic and also produced sufficient documentary evidence in support of his claim.
The landlord/owner placed on record the sale deed of the property in question to show that property was a residential plot and structure has been constructed on the same consisting of a residential living unit.  Even the house tax is being paid on the basis of residential user.  However, landlord/owner admitted that since the inception of tenancy, tenant is running a Chinese Medical Clinic in the tenanted premises and he never objected to it.
The crux of dispute between the parties appeared to be the purpose of letting.  Decide.
(c)  Discuss the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 regarding landlord's duty not to cut off or withhold any essential supply or service enjoyed by tenant in respect of the premises let out to him.  Under what circumstances a landlord can cut off or withhold any essential supply or service in the tenanted premises.
Q.  2  (a)  (i)  Rajiv and Savita were married in 1973, Savita filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty.  Rajiv, in written statement, had leveled very serious allegations of adultery.  Subsequently, rajiv withdrew allegations of adultery by amending written statement.  The trial court held that allegations revealed by Savita were instances of ordinary wear and tear of life.  But the trial court further held that wild allegations of adultery made by Rajiv in his written statement are sufficient to establish cruelty.  The marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce.  The trial court, however, did not take notice of withdrawal of allegations of adultery by Rajiv against Savita.  Do you support decision of the trial court?  Answer with reasons.
(ii)  Surender, aged about 28 years, and Rekha, aged about 26 years, fell in love with each other.  They got married as per Hindu customs and rites.  However, since the first day of marriage matrimonial disputes arose between them.  The marriage could not be consummated.  Both of them were software engineers.  They got high profile jobs in multinational companies in different countries.  They mutually decided to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce.  They filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of mutual consent.  There was no misrepresentation of facts before the court.  The petition was filed within two months from date of marriage.  The trial court refused to entertain the petition by observing that case did not fall within ambit of 'exceptional hardship'.  Do you support decision of trial court?  Answer with reasons.
(b)  A and his wife B had three daughters.  A made a registered will on 19.3.1929 bequeathing his properties to B for life for maintenance and after her properties to be given in three equal shares to daughters including the plaintiff.  On 20.7.1972, B gave shares to two daughters excluding the plaintiff.  B retained the share of plaintiff, and later gave the same to another daughter.  B died on 9.10.1977.  The plaintiff filed a civil suit for claiming her share on the basis of will executed by A on 19.3.1929.  Decide.
OR
Write a note on powers and liabilities of a Karta in a Hindu joint family.
(c)  A postacy does not automatically dissolve a marriage already solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.  Discuss with relevant case law.
OR
Write a note on 'Option of Puberty'.  Whether repudiation of marriage on attaining age of puberty should be confirmed by a civil court?
(d)  "Dower" is an invaluable right of a Muslim wife.  Comment.  What are different types of "dower"?
OR
Define death-illness (marz-ul-maut).  What are necessary conditions to constitute death-illness?  Discuss power of donor to make a gift during his death-illness.
Q.  3  (a)  A was inducted as a tenant in respect of premises in question by B for a period of three years at a monthly rent of Rs. 2000.  A did not vacate the tenanted premises even after expiry of lease period.  B made several requests to A to vacate premises in question and also served legal notice calling upon A to vacate premises in question.  A did not pay heed to requests of B.  On 12.2.1990, A was forcibly dispossessed by B.  A filed a suit for possession in civil court on 12.7.1990.  B defended the suit on plea that he is real owner of the premises in question; and A did not have any right to regain possession of premises in question after expiry of lease period.  Decide.
OR
The plaintiff was owner of land measuring 50 sq.  yards whereon he constructed temporary shop and started to run a dhaba/hotel.  Subsequently, plaintiff permitted the defendant to run said dhaba/hotel on theka for a period of one year vide agreement dated 17.1.1987.  the defendant started to pay Rs. 40 per day as licence fee.  Sometimes son of the plaintiff issued rent receipts to the defendant.  Plaintiff himself admitted defendant as a tenant in a notice sent through his advocate.  The defendant never disputed agreement dated 17.1.1987.
The plaintiff filed a suit for Mandatory Injunction seeking direction to defendant to handover the possession of premises in question.  Whether suit for Mandatory Injunciton is maintainable?
(b)  Discuss relevant principle that govern grant of temporary injunction.  Whether a temporary injunction can be granted in the from of mandatory injunction?
OR
Whether following contracts can be specifically enforced:
i.    a contracts with B to sing for the latter for one year at B's theatre;
ii.    a contract of transfer to immovable property;
iii.    a contract to sell a picture by a well known dead painter;
iv.    a contract to charter an aero plane;
v.    a contract to refer a dispute to arbitration.
(c)  Distinguish an "offer" from an "invitation to offer".  A published an advertisement for selling his house at a price of Rs. 15 lakhs.  A declined to sell his house to B who was ready to pay Rs. 125 lakhs as price of house of A.  A sold his house to C who agreed to pay price of Rs. 20 lakhs.  Whether B can sue A for purchase of house?
OR
Discuss law relating to "contingent contracts".  Ram agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000 to Shyam if Shyam marries Rekha.  However, Rekha married Sohan.  Sohan died in an accident.  Thereafter, Shyam married Rekha.  Shyam filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5000 against Ram.  Decide.
(d)  Tony borrowed a sum of Rs. 5000 from john in order to bet with Mahesh as to result of a cricket match, the betting on a cricket match is not authorized by law.  Tony lost bet to Mahesh.  Tony neither paid a sum of Rs. 5000 to Mahesh nor returned Rs. 5000 to john.  Mahesh and John initiated legal remedies against Tony separately for recovery of Rs. 5000.  Decide.
OR
Naresh engages Mr.  Vinay, a well known painter to paint a picture depicting particular designs for him.  Naresh agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as professional charges to Mr. Vinay.  After completion of work, if was revealed that an assistant of Mr. Vinay painted the picture but under guidance and supervision of Mr. Vinay.  Naresh refused to pay professional charges as per agreement.  Mr. Vinay filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000 in civil court.  Decide.
Q.  4  (a)  What are the exceptions available to the rule of caveat emptor?
What are the effects of delivery of goods in wrong quantity or of different description?  The seller agreed to supply 100 bags of wheat but only 90 bags of the wheat were supplied to the buyer.  Whether buyer can refuse to take delivery of 90 bags of the wheat.  Decide.
(b)  What are the legal remedies available to the buyer against the seller for breach of contract under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?  Discuss.
OR
Write short notes on following:-
(i)    injuria sine damno
(ii)    volenti non fit injuria
(c)  Discuss under the circumstances a person who is not a partner in the firm can be held to be a partner for the purpose of liability towards a third party.  Rahim and Abdul were carrying on business of supplying sugar in partnership under the name and style of 'Sunrise'.  The partnership was dissolved but Rahim continued to carry on business under the same name.  Rahim used an old letterhead of the firm bearing names of both partners and placed an order for the purchase of sugar to company 'Delta'.  Rahim did not pay the price of sugar to Delta.  Delta initiated legal proceedings against abdul for recovery of price of sugar.  Decide.
OR
Discuss rule of 'strict liability'.  What are exceptions to the said rule?
(d)  Discuss essentials of a partnership under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
OR
Discuss various modes of dissolution of partnership under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.