Gujarat Court May 1979 Judgments
Harilal Chakubhai Zaveri Vs. Jayantilal Kirchand Makani and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj11; (1979)GLR792
ORDER1. This is a petition under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act by a tenant, who had filed a regular civil suit No. 590 of 1970 in the court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) Rajkot for a declaration that the alleged consent order by the Rent Court, Rajkot in Misc. Application No. 470 of 1969 fixing the standard rent of the rented premises at Rs. 225/- per month was vitiated by fraud practised on him and on the court. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge by his judgment dated 13-12-1976. The respondents-landlords, that is, the landlord and his father-cum-manager, preferred the civil appeal No. 92 of 1976 in the District Court. It came to be allowed by the learned Joint District Judge there. The original tenant has, therefore, moved this court by this revision application, seeking reversal of the appellate order and restoration of the trial court's order.2. A few facts require to be stated. There is situated a property at Rajkot belonging to Sudhirkant Jayantilal Makani, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Mazmusha SalehIn Sheikh Nurmohamed and anr. Vs. SaifuddIn Moham ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR4
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendants under the Bombay Rent Act for recovering possession of the suit premises on two grounds. The plaintiffs required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their personal occupation. Defendants had acquired suitable accommodation within the meaning of Section 13(1)(1).2. The learned trial Judge upheld both the grounds and decreed the plaintiff's suit. Defendants appealed against that decree to the District Court. The learned appellate Judge held mat the plaintiffs did not require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their personal occupation. He, therefore, set aside the finding recorded in that behalf by the learned trial Judge. However, he upheld the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that the defendants had acquired suitable residence within the meaning of Section 13(1)(1). In that view of the matter he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree for possession.3. It is that appell...
Tag this Judgment!Dahiben Lakhabhai and anr. Vs. the Administrative Officer and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR90
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendants for recovering possession of the suit premises which consist of a school building on the ground that defendant No. 3 who is the tenant has unlawfully sublet them to defendant No. 2, Gondal Municipality. Defendant No. 3 is Gondal Taluka Panchayat to which the suit premises were let by the plaintiffs for running the school. Thereafter the Government by its Resolution dated 28th February, 1968, Exhibit 61, resolved to transfer primary schools to the Municipalities where the Municipalities were prepared to shoulder the responsibility. Accordingly the primary schools in the town of Gondal were transferred from Gondal Taluka Panchayat to Gondal Municipality. The plaintiffs, therefore, contended that Gondal Taluka Panchayat had unlawfully sublet the suit premises to Gondal Municipality and that, therefore, they were entitled to recover its possession under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act.2. It was contended ...
Tag this Judgment!Rasiklal Narmadashanker Trivedi Vs. Dilipkumar Vasantbhai Kotak and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR741
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendant for recovering possession of the suit premises on the ground that the defendant had been in arrears of rent. Indisputably he had been in arrears of rent for more than six months. The defendant in his defence denied the plaintiffs' claim. The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiffs' claim was governed by Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act and that the defendant was not ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent because he had not paid to the plaintiffs the arrears of rent within the time stipulated by Section 12(3)(a). He, therefore, passed against the defendant decree for possession.2. The defendant challenged that decree in the District Court. The learned appellate Judge held that Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act did not govern the present suit because education cess which was a part of the rent was not payable monthly. He, therefore, took the view that the plaintiffs' claim was governed by...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Spinning and Weaving Works Vs. the Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-07-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj21; (1979)GLR932
ORDER1. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of possession against the defendants on two grounds Defendant No.1tenant had not used the suit premises for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit and he had no reasonable cause to do so. Defendant No. 1 the tenant had unlawfully sublet a part of the suit premises to defendant No. 2. The suit premises are business premises where the powerlooms have been installed. The suit Premises consist of three Survey Numbers - 16/14, 16/24 and 401/8, another part of the suit premises was unlawfully sublet by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2. Survey No. 16/24 had not been used by defendant No. 1 within the meaning of S. 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act.2. In defence it was contended by defendant No. 1 that he had been using and, occupying an of them and that his powerlooms were there, It was further alleged by defendant No. 1 that defendant No. 1 had trespassed into Survey No. 401/8, a part of the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Mani Vs. Jayantilal Dahyabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Guj209; (1980)GLR66
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. An emotive question, whether continuance in adulterous relationship on the part of husband after the decree of judicial separation granted in favour of wife, inter alia, on the same ground, would per se amount to taking advantage of his own wrong so as to disentitle him to a decree f or divorce, arises in this. The question arises in the following circumstances:The parties hereto are Hindu and their marriage was solemnised according to Hindu rites somewhere in 1954 A. D. They stayed as husband and wife for seven years, and three children were born - one son and two daughters - by this wedlock. They had fallen out completely for reasons, the respective version of which is different, somewhere in 1961 and they are staying separately since then. It is an admitted position on the part of the respondent-husband that he developed intimacy with one Smt. Indumati, who happened to be the friend of the appellant-wife, and they came closer to each other and started living togeth...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Parsottamdas Sevniwala Vs. Chimanlal Dahyabhai Modi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj14; (1980)GLR1002
ORDER1. The plaintiff-tenant filed in the Court, of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Surat the present suit for a declaration that he is entitled to use the latrine situate on the ground floor of the building of which the suit premises form a part. He also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-landlord from interfering with his use of the latrine. The premises in the occupation of the plaintiff-tenant consist of a shop on the ground floor. The latrine in question is situate on the otta of the house of which the plaintiff's shop forms a part.2. In defence it was contended by the defendant-landlord that the plaintiff has no such right. He pleaded that it was not let out to the plaintiff-tenant.3. The learned trial Judge found that the defendant-landlord had not let out the latrine in question to the plaintiff-tenant. He, therefore, dismissed the suit.4. On appeal to the District Court by the plaintiff, the learned appellate Judge confirmed the finding that latri...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulkarim Abdulraheman Dilhiwala and ors. Vs. Alibhai Noormohmad Kadi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR685
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for recovering possession of the suit premises on several grounds. One of the grounds which was urged was that the defendants have acquired suitable alternative accommodation within the meaning of Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. It was alleged that defendants have constructed two buildings.2. In defence the defendants admitted that they have constructed two buildings on land which they have taken on rent but that they have constructed them for business purposes. They also contended that one of the two buildings was constructed out of the loan which was raised from the tenants. Therefore, that entire building was let out to the tenants.3. The learned trial Judge found that one of the two buildings was situate in a business area, that is to say, opposite Surat Railway Station. So far as the second building was concerned, he found that it was suitable for residence though it was situate adjacent to the f...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish RamnaraIn Vs. Narainbhai Motibhai Valand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1979
Reported in: (1979)1GLR808
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This Revision Application arises out of distress warrant proceedings. The landlord applied under Section 53-of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 for issuance of a distress warrant in order to 30: realise the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 630/-. Registrar of the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad issued notice to the tenant to show cause it why distress warrant should not be levied. The tenant appeared and contested the application. Thereafter the application was heard by the Court of Small Causes. By its order dated 23rd December 1977, it held that distress warrant could not be issued to attach movable property of: the tenant lying not at the premises let out to him by the landlord but at some other premises. It also held that the tenant to whom the premises have been let out by the landlord cannot be made liable to distress warrant if he has been residing elsewhere. On these findings the learned Judge dismissed the application for issuance of distress war...
Tag this Judgment!Sharadchandra Sughadlal Patel and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR663
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 1st July 1967 and, in the alternative, prayed for money decree against the defendants. The learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff's claim for specific performance of the agreement of sale but passed in favour of the plaintiff decree for a sum of Rs. 8,550/-. It was passed only against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and not against defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Plaintiff has challenged that decree in First Appeal No. 438 of 1977 which is filed in this Court. He wants this Court to pass in his favour decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale. In this appeal defendants Nos. 1 and 2 against whom decree for a sum of Rs. 8.550/- has been passed have filed cross-objections against it. So far as defendants Nos. 3,4 and 5 are concerned, the suit in its entirety stands dismissed as against them. However, the Jeamed trial Judge in his judgment has observed that, in case decree for speci...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›