Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-23-1973
Reported in : AIR1975Bom41; (1974)76BOMLR427; 1974MhLJ812
Nathwani, J.1. This Revision Application by one Habib Ahmad Khudabax who had obtained by the Ist respondent against the 2nd respondent is referred to a Division Bench by Mr., Justice Vimadlal as he tough that there was a conflict of decisions of single judges of this Court on the point, namely, whether an appeal lies at a Bench of the Presidency small Cause Court at Bombay from an order made by a single judge of that Court under Order XXI, Rule 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The first respondent is the owner of a property situate at Victoria Garden second respondent was a monthly tenant of a shop on the ground floor of the said property at a rent of Rs.50/-Per month. In 1962 the first respondent ( original plaintiff) filed a suit , R.A.E. Suit No. 257 of 1962 against the second respondent to recover possession of the said shop in the Small (1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (No.LVII of 1947), (hereinafter refereed to as the Rent Act), and April 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-29-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Bom245; (1974)76BOMLR394; 1974MhLJ539
Kantawala, C.J. 1. This matter is referred to the Full Bench by Vadiya. J. by his judgment and order dated April 23, 1971. The question which requires to be decided by the Full Bench is not framed but he has observed that in view of certain conflict of decisions he felt that the rights of landlords and tenants in suits or appeals pending on the date on which the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was made applicable, should be determined.2. Ramdas Chitrigi, the petitioner, is the tenant of room No. 8 in a building called 'Monica House' situate within the limits of the Gram Panchayat of Divanman near Bassein in Thana District. On January 20, 1968 the landlady, respondent No. 1 served a notice upon the petitioner terminating his tenancy. On April 27, 1968, respondent No. 1 filed a suit to recover possession of the premises from the petitioner. On March 31, 1970 a decree of eviction was passed against the petitioner, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-30-1973
Reported in : (1974)76BOMLR475
Naik, J.1. This appeal and companion appeals raise an important question about the scope and interpretation of Section 8(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950--which shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It arises in this way:--In the vicinity of the famous Mumbadevi temple at Bombay there are temples of Shree Ganapati, Murlidhar and Indrayani. It appears that on some representations being made to the Charity Commissioner, in the matter of these three temples, the managers or trustees of these temples were called upon to apply &r; registration under Section 18 of the Act. They having declined to do so and contended that the temples in question are their private properties, the Assistant Charity Commissioner instituted suo motu enquiry in respect of these three temples. In the course of the enquiry, he sent notices to the managers of the three temples and also to the trustees of the Mumbadevi temple. But the trustees of tie Mumbadevi temple, however, informed the Assistant C...
Tag this Judgment!