Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)18GLR848
J.B. Mehta, Ag. C.J.1. The plaintiffs-landlords have come in this Revision-Application as both the Courts have refused to pass the decree of eviction from the suit block after the defendant-tenant had shifted to his newly constructed bungalow on October 20, 1969.2. The short facts which have given rise to this litigation are as under. The defendant, Dr. Kantilal Shah has been a tenant in the suit house of the plaintiffs. There is a dispute as to whether the first block was given in 1946 as stated by the defendant or in 1948 as stated by the plaintiffs or whether this suit block which has been almost for all the time used as residential block was first let or after some short time as contended by the defendant. The defendant, however, had also got from time to time three other blocks in this very building. Thereafter, when in 1958 the defendant shifted to the hospital premises near Dandia Hanuman, where he had got four blocks out of which one he occupied for his residence and three for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1989Guj57; (1988)2GLR802
ORDER1. The petitioner submitted an application for fixation of standard rent of the premises in his possession asserting his right as tenant, but the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the Trustees of Jivibai alias Mongibai Will Trust denied the relationship of tenant and landlord and contended that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the premises consisting of one room for sometime prior to the date of service of notice to the petitioner as the petitioner is the son of the pujari of the temple who is also occupying certain portion of the building. As the dispute was about the relationship of tenant and landlord, the learned trial Judge raised issue and the parties led the evidence before the Trial Court. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Judge held the petitioner as tenant, but the learned District Judge in appeal did not agree with that finding observing it to be perverse and not according to law and allowed the revision application holding that the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)2GLR1248
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner-Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited [hereinafter referred to as, 'the petitioner-Bank'] seeks to challenge the order passed by the Labour Court, Surat in T-Application No. 249 of 1992 under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 [hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'] dated 11th February, 1998 wherein the Labour Court has granted reinstatement of respondent-workman in service with continuity and full back wages with consequential benefits and costs of Rs. 500. The said Award of the Labour Court dated llth February, 1998 was challenged by the petitioner-Bank before the Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Appeal (IC) No. 2 of 1998. While dismissing the said appeal, the Tribunal vide Order dated 31st August, 1999 has confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court dated 11th February, 1998. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)0GLR186
Desai, J.1. The decisions of two Division Benches are conflicting on the issue as to whether a person who purchases the leased property along with arrears of rent prior to his purchase can evict a tenant in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that is why the said point is referred to us. The facts in all the civil revision applications are similar and we shall state briefly the facts in Civil Revision Application No. 533 of 1969, which are that the suit property is a part of Nondh No. 817 situated in the city of Surat. The leased property isused as a stable. The present owner purchased the property on August 4, 1966 from its previous owner with the right to recover the rent already due at the date of transfer from the defendanttenant. The rent was due from July 1, 1965, The plaintiff-landlord, therefore, gave a notice to the defendant-tenant demanding the rent due from July 1,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1964Guj59; (1963)GLR1033
Shelat, C.J.1. These two petitions challenge the validity of Sections 2(10a), 59-C and 59-D of the Bombay Prohibition Act, XXV of 1949, certain rules made thereunder, the two notifications issued oy the Government of Gujarat dated April 6, 1962 and the order dated September 26, 1962, refusing the wholesalers licence and the pass to import French Polish and Varnish from outside the State of Gujarat. As both the petitions raise identical questions, it is expedient to dispose of both of them together by a common judgment.2. Both the petitioners carry on business as wholesale dealers in French Polish and Varnish and have been importing for their business these two articles from States such as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, etc. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 996 of 1962 have been importing on an average about 1500 gallons of French Polish per month and have been selling the same both wholesale and retail, the average monthly sale of French Polish coming to about 1500 gall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1998)1GLR519
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The appellant-plaintiffs have filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-6-1995 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Court No. 22, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 1969 of 1990, whereby the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed.2. The first appellant is a proprietary concern and the second appellant is its sole proprietor. In the suit filed by the appellants, number of reliefs were prayed. However, to summarise the same in nutshell, the appellants filed the said suit for a declaration that the respondent-defendants are not entitled to disconnect the telephone connections held by the appellant-plaintiffs and for a direction to restore and/or reconnect the telephones of the appellants.3. It is the case of the appellants that they were subscribers of two telephone connections one at the factory being No. 811585 and another at the residence being No. 39514. Telephone No. 811585 was disconnected with effect from 25-11-1985 for non-payment of the two ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1961Guj151; (1961)2GLR343
Bhagwati, J.1. This Second Appeal raises a question of considerable importance regarding proprietary rights in lands granted by Rulers of Indian States before the merger of those States with the Dominion of India and the effect of the merger on such proprietary rights. Several arguments have been addressed to us relating to different aspects of this question and the arguments have been both able and ingenious. In order to understand and appreciate these arguments, it is necessary to set out the facts giving rise to this appeal. The facts are not many and may be briefly stated as follows:2. Prior to 15th August 1947, the Sant State was an independent native State under the paramountcy of the British Crown. On 15th August 1947, India obtained independence and became a Dominion by reason of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. At the same time, the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Indian States lapsed by reason of Section 7 of that Act and as a result thereof, the Sant State became...
Tag this Judgment!