Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR293
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two petitions are in the nature of public interest litigation, the first at the instance of a journalist from Pune and the second at the instance of a Corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution broadly challenge the action of the first respondent, the State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'P.M.C') in grantingbuilding permission to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for construction of a building on Final Plot No. 110, Erandwana, Pune. The petitions also allege that the action of the Commissioner of P.M.C. was at the behest of respondent No. 5 who was the Chief Minister of the Government of Maharashtra at the material time and contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.P. Act'). It is contended that the said buildings permission is not only illegal, but also vitiated as it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR299; 2005(5)BomCR832
Britto N.A., J.1. These are plaintiffs second appeals.2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the suits.3. The plaintiff is the owner of a property known as 'Maddem' having land registration No. 29031, Matriz No. 2290 surveyed under No. 114/5 with a house in it, situated in Umtawaddo of Calangute village.4. The plaintiff by virtue of an agreement dated 24-9-1976 let out to defendant No. 1 the said house as per the plan attached with compound at the back of the house and a strip of land which went up to the seashore; on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 775/-. The lease was for a period of 22 years from 1-4-1976, for the purpose of running a guest house. Considering the nature of the business, it was agreed between the parties that rent would be Rs. 425/- per month for the first year and with a proportionate increase of Rs. 50/- every subsequent year. Clause 9 of the said deed, which is most relevant, reads as follows :-'The lessee sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)107BOMLR843; 2005(1)MhLj547
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 24-3-2004 passed by the respondent-BMC and the demand for payment made pursuant to the bills - Exhibits R. S-1 to S-8 annexed to the petition being contrary to the provisions of law, illegal, and in excess of the powers conferred upon the authority under the provisions of law comprised under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, hereinafter called as 'the said Act.'3. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owners of the property having therein a building by name 'Dalamal Tower', situated in Plot No. 211, Backbay Reclamation, Municipal 'A' Ward No. 1315 (127), Nariman Point, Mumbai. The building comprises of a basement, ground plus fifteen upper floors having two enclosed garages in the basement and 274 units of which 199 are self-occupied by the members of the petitioner-society wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... in increase in rent was provided to the landlords in the areas to which the bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates control act, 1947 applies. no such relief was however, available to the landlords in the vidarbha region and marathwada region. under clause 12 of the bill it is proposed to permit the landlords to raise rent by 5 per cent, every year irrespective of whether the premises are used for residential or nonresidential purposes; (e) there has been no major departure from the existing provision relating to the fixation of standard rent though an important features of the bill is the limitation placed for making an application for fixation of standard rent which application can ..... is payable of any premises and includes such person by virtue of or under the provisions of any of the repealed acts. thus, any person by whom rent is payable or on whose account rent is payable for the premises means a tenant. it includes any person in such capacity and recognized by the repealed act or any of its provisions. 75 clause (b) refers to a person who is deemed to be a tenant under section 25 of the mrc act and therefore, he becomes a tenant for the purpose of the mrc act. now, section 25 of the mrc act refers to certain subtenants and whose induction is lawful. their sub-tenancy ought to be subsisting .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2] By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of the case culminating in the eviction order of the appellate authority dated 31st January 2007 and to quash and set aside the (I) Notice of Termination dated 10th/14th February 1995, (ii) the Notice of Eviction dated 19th April 1999 (iii) Order of 2nd respondent and (iv) the order of appellate authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, dated 31st January 2007 in Misc.Appeal No.261 of 2001. 3] The proceedings are under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. (for short PPE Act). The petitioner states that it was a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and continued to be so till the eviction ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(6)MhLj875
R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by tenant is directed against concurrent findings of the learned Civil Judge and the District Judge that the petitioner failed to pay arrears of rent, permitted increases, taxes and other service charges and thereby incurred ejectment under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.2. The litigation has chequered history. The petitioner is admittedly a tenant in respect of a godown situated at Municipal House No. 168 in Ward No. 64 at Akola, owned by the respondent. The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the landlord, his brother and two others, namely Nitin Kumar and Jagdishchandra. This suit bearing No. 808/1997 was for an injunction to restrain the landlords from obstructing the tenant's way to the godown. It was decreed on 10.07.1998. On 3rd January, 1999, the landlord sent notice stating that the tenant was in arrears of rent, demanding payment of arrears for a period from Diwali of 1998 to Diwali of 1999 @ Rs. 296.25p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom19; (1965)67BOMLR380; 1966CriLJ9; ILR1965Bom619
Naik, J. (1) This proceeding for contempt of court been initiated by the High Court of the report submitted by Mr. Vimadala, judge city civil court, Bombay (as he then was) in respect of the an incident which took place in his court on 4th March 1963. The facts leading unto the incident on the 4th March 1963 may be briefly outlined as follows: The plaintiff Mrs. Damayanti G. Chandiramani, filed a suit a against the defendants S. Vanvey, for recovery of possession and arrears of compensation on the basis that the defendants was a licenses and that the license was revoked. That suit was filed on 26th October 1962. After the service the summons, the defendants attended the office of Advocates punwani, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit for inspections of the documents,. This was on 10th November 1962. On 10th January 1963 the defendants stared prosecution under section 24 of the Rent control Act a against the plaintiff her parents and Advocates punwani on the basis in tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR664; 2007(6)BomCR660; 2008(2)MhLj78
Deshmukh S.B., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.3. A brief histories of lis would suffice. The Writ Petition No. 3017 of 2007, takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule in Inquiry No. 400 of 2007 passed on 3rd May, 2007. Writ Petition No. 3401 of 2007 challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule in Inquiry No. 415 of 2007, dated 22nd May, 2007.4. Writ Petition No. 3017, as noted above, challenges the order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule in Inquiry Application No. 400 of 2007. This proceeding/inquiry application, indisputably, is registered at the instance of learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule Region, Dhule (suo motu). It appears that Borvihir Vidya Prasarak Sanstha, Taluka and District Dhule (hereinafter referred to as the trust, for short) is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR128; 2005(1)BomCR839; 2005(1)MhLj1097
D.G. Karnik, J.1. The question of law that arise for determination in this Civil Revision Application is:(i) Whether during the pendency of a suit filed by a landlord for eviction of a tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the Bombay Rent Act) the landlord can file a second suit for eviction under the general law (Transfer of Property Act, 1882) against a tenant who has ceased to have protection of a Rent Act by reason of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ?The brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid questions are stated below:2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit) against the applicant (hereinafter also referred to as the tenant) for eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground that he required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his own use and occupation and that the tenant was a defaulter in payme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2002Bom65; 2002(2)BomCR300; 2002(2)MhLj305
A.P. Shah, J.1. The constitutional validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has been challenged in these writ petitions. This question which is common to all the writ petitions is the only question which arises for consideration and these writ petitions are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which is hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Act, lays down :'Section 3(1) -- This Act shall not apply -- (a)....... (b) to any premises let or sub-let to banks, or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Corporation established by or under any Central or State Act, or foreign missions, international agencies, multinational companies, and private limited companies and public limited companies having a paid up share capital of Rupees one crore or more. Explanation. -- For the purpose of this clause the expression 'bank' means; -- (i) the State Bank of India constituted under...
Tag this Judgment!