Gujarat Court November 1969 Judgments
Jhala Umedsinghji Merubhabhai Vs. Indumati Markandrav Trivedi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Guj214; (1970)11GLR848
1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Application is the original defendant-tenant. The opponent is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff filed Regular civil suit No. 268 of 1964 for recovery of possession of the suit premises. Rs. 240/- as arrears of rent and future mesne profits etc. It was the plaintiff's case that the monthly rent was Rs. 20/- that the tenant had not paid rent for 15 months and therefore she had terminated the tenancy by giving notice dated 28th September 1964; that after the service of the notice mesne profits for a period of one month became due and payable by the tenant. Against that the tenant paid a sum of Rs. 80/- by two money orders each of Rs. 40/- and taking into account the amount received, Rs. 240/- remained due. The tenant thus being in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months, she was entitled to possession. The tenant filed a written statement and raised a number of contentions. For the purpose of this Civil Revision Application, it wou...
Tag this Judgment!Luvana Thakarsi @ Shankerlal Karsandas Vs. Bhatia Hirji Damodar and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-1969
Reported in: (1971)12GLR397
N.K. Vakil, J.1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Application is the original defendant No. 2. Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 were plaintiffs and opponent No. 4 was the original defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs, filed Regular civil suit No. 12 of 1964 to recover possession of the suit premises which was a shop situated at Nalia in Kutch District from the defendants on the grounds that (i) defendant No. 1 had illegally transferred the tenancy rights to defendant No. 2 (ii) the premises were reasonably and bona fide required for personal use by the plaintiff No. 1 and (iii) the tenant was in arrears of rent for a period of six months and more. The suit was defended by defendant No. 2 inter alia on the ground that the defendant No. 1 had retransferred to him his right in the suit shop as a going concern together with good-will and the tenancy rights and as such it was transfer permissible by law. The trial Court held that the suit premises were not required by the plaintiff reasonably and bona fide...
Tag this Judgment!Musamiyan Imam Haidarbux Razvi and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Guj158; (1971)0GLR1
Bhagwati, C.J.1. These petitions raise an interesting question whether acquisition of land for construction of houses for members of a Co-operative Housing Society can be said to be an acquisition for a public purpose. The facts giving rise to these petitions follow a common pattern and it would, therefore, be sufficient if we set out the facts of only one petition, namely, Special Civil Application No. 180 of 1965. The petitioner in this petition is the owner of a piece of land situate in Ahmedabad. There is a Society called Patel Baug Co-operative Housing Society Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the Society) registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. It is a Co-operative Housing Society formed with the object of enabling its members to construct houses. The petitioner's land being well situate, the Society moved the State Government to acquire the petitioner's land for construction of houses by its members and the State Government accordingly issued a notificat...
Tag this Judgment!Naniben D/O. Narsinh Vanmali Vs. Maganbhai Durlabhbhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-1969
Reported in: (1971)12GLR245
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner landlady has filed these two petitions against the two tenants as her application under Section 32T on the basis of the certificate under Section 88C has been dismissed by the order of the Revenue Tribunal, dated February 22, 1965. As both these petitions raise common questions they are disposed by this common order:2. As regards the common question in the two petitions as to the findings that the petitioner landlady did not bona fide require the lands in question for personal cultivation, the Revenue Tribunal has mixed up the requirements of Section 31 with Section 32T. Under Section 31(1)(a) the landlord is given a right to terminate the tenancy of lands if he bona fide required the same for personal cultivation. However, further restriction was put on this right of termination for cultivating the land personally under Section 31 and by reason of Section 31A(c) which required that he must fulfil the following condition:the income by cultivation of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Motiram Tamakuwala Vs. M.B. Shelat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-13-1969
Reported in: (1971)12GLR213
A.D. Desai, J.1. These two criminal revision applications raise the same questions for our determination. The facts pertaining to these two applications are similar and they were argued together. Hence we shall dispose of them by this common judgment.2. In Criminal Revision Application No. 293 of 1969, the facts are that the Food Inspector of Surat Municipal Corporation visited the shop of the petitioner and seized bottles containing material described as 'Kashmir Madhu'. The seizure of the bottles was made in the presence of two panchas. The seizure was effected because according to the Food Inspector the petitioner was selling the bottles as 'honey' though in fact the bottles did not contain 'honey'. The petitioner was thus selling the bottles in contravention of Rule 45 of the Rules made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector then filed an application No. 1 of 1968 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Municipality), Surat producing the bo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›