Mumbai Court March 1964 Judgments
Chapsibhai Dhanjibhai Vs. Purshottam Motilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Bom287; (1964)66BOMLR525; 1964MhLJ668(SC)
1. These two appeals can be disposed of by common judgment for the sake of convenience since they involve some facts which are common to both the cases. Second Appeal No. 217 of 1961 has arisen out of a suit filed by Chapsibhai Dhanjibhai Jain against Purushottam son of Motilal Jhunjhunwala. Second Appeal No. 218 of 1961 has arisen out of a suit filed by Purushottam Motilal Jhunjhunwala against Chapsibhai Dhanjibhai Jain. Throughout the judgment, Chapsibhai will be referred to as the plaintiff and Purushottam will be referred to as the defendant The fact underlying this litigation may be briefly stated as follows: There is an open piece of land belonging to the predecessors-in-title of the defendant at Khamgaon, on 5-5-1906 the plaintiffs father took the easternmost portion of this land, measuring 26 feet east-west and 225 feet north-south on lease and passed a kabuliyat in 5-5-1906 in respect of the same. In 1906 the plaintiff's father constructed a building which he started using as ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Subhanji Adekar Vs. Akaji Undersa Umathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom129
(1)This appeal, which arises out of execution proceedings, has raised a somewhat ticklish point of law. The respondent Akaji Umathe had filed a suit against the appellant in Civil Suit No. 291 of 1959 for eviction and arrears of rent. The suit was instituted on 5-9-1959. Prior to the filing of the suit, he had obtained the permission of the appellate authority in rent control proceedings for terminating the tenancy of the defendant. The application to the Rent Controller was made under clause 13(3) (I), (ii), (iv), (vii) and (ix) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, that is to say, on the grounds that the tenant had failed to pay rent and was in arrears for a period of three months, that he was a habitual defaulter, that the premises were used for purposes other than the one for which it was leased and that the landlord required the premises for essential repairs and also on the ground that the tenant was causing nuisance. The Rent Controller dismissed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›