Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1993(3)BomCR714
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. This writ petition raises an important question as to whether an order passed on the basis of a compromise can be challenged in an appeal before the District Judge under section 25 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as `the Hyderabad Rent Control Act' for the sake of brevity.2. In Rent Control Case No. 2 of 1990 praying for eviction of the tenant from a hall admeasuring 20' x 20' which is part of House No. 5-10-30 situated at Samadhan Colony in Augrangabad city, a compromise was filed and recorded on 11-1-1991. On the basis of this compromise, the learned Rent Controller, Aurangabad was pleased to pass an order on 10-2-1992 directing the eviction of the tenant petitioner from the disputed premises. This order came to be challenged before the learned District Judge, Aurangabad in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 1992 and he was pleased to hold that the appeal is not maintainable and, consequently, dismissed the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Heard Mr. S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above Writ Petition inter-alia challenges the judgment dated 27.06.2007 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Eviction Appeal No.17/05 filed by the petitioner/tenants against the judgment and order dated 20.05.2005 passed by the Rent Controller at Panaji, in case No. ADDL/RENT/4/94 filed by the respondents for the eviction of the petitioner's mother/original tenant. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that by a lease agreement executed in September, 1967, the grandfather of the respondents leased the suit premises to the petitioner's father for residential purpose. By virtue of a family settlement entered into on 24.01.1989, the respondents became the owners of the property in which the suit premises are located on the first floor of one of the residential houses out of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995(3)BomCR723
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is the judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Daman and Diu dated 4th June, 1990 in Eviction Revision Application No. 3 of 1986 which was affirmed the judgment and order dated 28-12-1985 of the Additional Rent Controller, South Goa Sub-Division, Margao, in Case No. BIDG/160/ARC/83.2. By the aforesaid judgment the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed an application of the original late petitioner Manual Mendes, now represented by his legal representatives, (hereinafter called 'the petitioner') under section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called 'the Act') seeking to stop all further proceedings with a direction to the respondents to put the petitioner in possession of the suit premises and allowed at the same time an application of the respondent No. 2 under section 32(3) praying for an enquiry as to who should pay the rent and to what extent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1984Bom96; 1984(2)BomCR478; ILR1984Bom1784a
Shah, J.1. These matters are before is on a single by his order dt. Oct. 26 1982. Masodkar. J. formulated the following two question for the consideration of a division Bench :Whether, by interpreting the provisions of s. 46(2) of the Act No, XIX of 1976 all the proceedings pending when chap. VII was enacted by that ACt and it came into force would be governed by the amended provisions of Chap. VII or otherwise weather the provisions of Section 46(2) maintaining two different procedures would be villative of Art. 14 of the constitution of India A few relevant facts in so far as they are material for deciding the reference need to be stated. In Writ Petition NO. 3144 of 1981 the respondents are the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay. They owned a property bearing old B. B. NO. 941 situated at Jackeria Bunder Boad, Bombay . On the said plot of land a building consisting of five rooms belonging . After giving a notice to quit dt. Jan. 22, 1975, on Mar. 19 1976 the respondent-Port Tru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR405; 1999(1)BomCR643; (1999)1BOMLR687; [1999(81)FLR767]; (1999)IILLJ109Bom; 1999(1)MhLj489
ORDERB. N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Award of the 2nd respondent. First Labour Court, Mumbai, dated 16th April, 1996, made in Reference (IDA) No. 439 of 1986.Facts:2. The petitioner is a foreign Airline Company incorporated under the laws of Saudi Arabia and owned by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is engaged in the transportation of passengers, cargo and mail by air and has offices at various places all over the world including one at Mumbai. The 1st respondent is an ex-employee of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the Presiding Officer of the First Labour Court, Mumbai, exercising adjudicatory jurisdiction under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')3. The 1st respondent, Mrs. Shehnaz Mudbhatkal, joined the service of the petitioner on 16th November, 1978, as Secretary to the Station Manager. Prior to joining the petitioner's service, she was wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(2)BomCR609
V.V. Kamat, J.1. This petition seeks a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 31st July 1981 made in Case No. Rent 45/80 by the Rent Controller, Goa North Division, respondent No. 4 and order dated 12th September, 1988 made in Eviction Appeal No. 65/81 by the Administrative Tribunal, respondent No.3.2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners are the landlords of a building called Ganga Niwas situated at Panaji, Goa. By a lease agreement executed between the parties on 9th August 1968 the first floor premises consisting of 11 rooms was let out as office accommodation of the Directorate of Agriculture or any other Government Office. The lease stipulated that it shall be for a period of 360 days with effect from 1st May, 1968 to be automatically renewed for equal period in future on payment of the monthly rent of Rs. 1,925/- to the be paid by the 10th of the following month...
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!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(4)BomCR136; (2001)3BOMLR518
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Judgment Debtors for setting aside the insolvency Notice dated 30th August. 1999, taken out by the Decree Holder. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this Notice of Motion are that in Appeal No. 636 of 1991 the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 26th June. 1992 passed a consent decree, which according to the Decree Holder is a decree for payment of money. The Decree Holder took out an Insolvency Notice dated 30th August, 1999 and served it on the judgment Debtor on 20th September, 1999. The Notice was taken out under the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. On being served with that notice the Judgment Debtor has taken out this Notice of Motion for, setting aside that Insolvency Notice on various grounds including the ground that the decree pursuant to which this Insolvency Notice has been taken out is not enforceable, as the decree holder has not obtained a leave of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR171
N.A. Britto, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. By these petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner tenant questions the legality of the order dated 23.7.2004 of the Rent Controller, Panaji as upheld by the Administrative Tribunal by order dated 10.12.04, dismissing the tenant's application for amendment of his written statement to enable him to withdraw the plea of permanent tenancy taken by him earlier by amending his written statement in proceedings filed by the respondents landlords for his eviction.3. The respondents who are the landlords had filed eviction proceedings for the eviction of the said tenant in respect of two floors of their building known as 'Hotel Imperial' having Matriz No. 336 under Section 22(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the G.D.D. Buildings (L.R.E.) Act, 1968 (Act, for short) and a written statement was filed by the tenant on or about 16.12.1991 denying the case of the landlords.4. On or about 7.7.93 the tenant filed an application for a...
Tag this Judgment!