Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1993Guj5; (1992)1GLR79
ORDERC.K. Thakkar, J.1. This group of petitions is filed against the order dated May 30, 1987 passed by the District Judge, Bhavnagar in various appeals filed before him under Section 9 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Public Premises Act').2. The facts giving rise to the present controversy may now be shortly stated.'The petitioner is a 'Board' i.e. the Housing Board constituted under Section 3 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Housing Board Act'). The respondent in each petition is an allottee of a tenament either in Middle Income Group (MIG for short) or in Lower Income Group (LIG for short) Scheme of Housing Board at Bhavnagar. It is the case of the petitioner-Board that the allottees had not paid rent equivalent to amount of instalments due and payable under the agreement to sell entered into between the Housing Board on one hand and the allottees who are tenants of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1996]87CompCas557(Guj); (1995)2GLR1752
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A very substantial and significant question that arises for consideration and determination is whether a conviction and eviction of a service occupier under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, for withholding company's premises after termination of employment, by any reason, is competent and maintainable or not in view of the protection and provision of section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 2. The appellant herein - original complainant who was working as deputy manager in 'New Shorrock Mills', a unit of Mafatlal Industries Limited ('the company', for short) had filed Criminal Case No. 6545 of 1988 on October 18, 1988, in the court of the learned Chief J.M.F.C., Nadiad, inter alia, contending that respondent No. 1 original accused has wrong fully withheld possession of room No. 30 in New Shorrock Nagar, the property of the company ('the disputes property', for short), after his retirement from the employment of the company...
Tag this Judgment!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 : AIR1971Guj208; (1971)0GLR201
Patel, J. 1. Civil Revision Application Nos. 392 of 1966 and 371 of 1966 have been referred to the Division Bench. The same question is involved in both the Revisions and, therefore, they are heard together. 2. Civil Revision Application No. 371 of 1966 came up for hearing before our learned brother Vakil J. Vakil J. held that there was no bar of res judicata. The suit was brought by the landlord for possession of leased premises on the ground that tenancy was terminated as the tenant had subject the premises before 1-1-1964. The Saurashtra Rent Control Act was in force at the time of subletting, however, the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Gujarat Extension Amendment Act, 1963, Act No. 57 of 1963) came into force on 1-1-1964. By the said Act, the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951 (Saurashtra Act XXII of 1951) was repealed. The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 with amendments was applied to the Saurashtra area. The contractual...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1973)14GLR410
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal raises an interesting question of law as to the effect of repeal of Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Saurashtra Rent Act) on a suit filed by a landlord against a tenant in respect of premises exempt from the applicability of the Saurashtra Rent Act by reason of Section 4(2) of that Act. The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows.2. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant to recover possession of certain premises let to the defendant. The premises were situate in Bagasara which was formerly part of Saurashtra. The case of the plaintiff was that the premises were new premises erected and let for the first time after 1st January 1951 and, therefore, by reason of the exemption contained in Section 4(2), the Saurashtra Rent Act had no application to the premises and the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the premises under the ordinary law of landlor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1982)2GLR596
B.K. Mehta, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the State Government, is directed against the judgment and order of the City Civil Court Ahmedabad, dated February 27, 1980, granting declaration that the notice for summary eviction issued by the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, purporting to act under Section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') from the land of S. No. 518 situated within the revenue limits of village Vadaj, Ahmedabad Taluka, admeasuring about acres 19-02 gunthas, is bad in law and void, inasmuch as Section 202 of the Code being corresponding law stood repealed in light of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Public Premises Act') which repealed not only the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 but also any other corresponding law for eviction of occupants from the public premises. In order to apprecia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1969)10GLR857
N.G. Shelat, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 20 of 1963 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) at Kalawad for recovering possession of the suit shop together with mesne profits and costs of the suit against the appellant-original defendant inter alia alleging that he had taken the suit shop under a rent-note dated 20th October 1960 on a monthly rent of Rs. 33/- and that he had agreed to hand over possession thereof when he required the same for selling or mortgaging or at any time when he required for his own purposes by giving him one month's notice. The plaintiff required the said shop for raising a loan of Rs. 10, 000/- by creating a mortgage with possession thereon and that for that purpose be served him a notice dated 8th January 1963 terminating his tenancy and demanding possession of the suit shop from Maha Vad 30 of S.Y. 2019. Since the defendant failed to comply therewith he filed the suit against the defendant.2. The defendant resisted the suit by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)18GLR64
D.P. Desai, J.1. The present petitioner (original defendant) was a monthly tenant of the suit house in Veraval since before 1955-56 in 1955-56 he constructed a house in the same town and thereafter let it out to different tenants from time to time. The last letting, it appears was in the year 1961. The suit house came to be purchased from its original owner by the opponents in the year 1963. Admittedly in the year 1955-56 and subsequent thereto till January 1, 1964, the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951 (which will hereafter be referred to as 'the Saurashtra Act') was applicable to the suit premises. It was from January 1, 1964 that the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act') came to be applied. Under Section 13(1)(L) of the Saurashtra, Act, a landlord became entitled to recover possession of any premises to which the Act applied, if the Court is satisfied that the tenant after the coming into operation of the said Act h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)2GLR1644
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant has taken out this Judge's Summons seeking leave of this Court under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 to continue the HRP Suit No. 1065 of 2006 filed by him against the opponents for the reliefs prayed for in the said suit comprising of the relief for the actual and physical possession of the suit premises as well as for decree for arrears of rent and mesne profits and for permanent injunction restraining the opponents from transferring, assigning or parting with the possession, in any manner, of the suit premises. With the leave of the Court, the applicant has also prayed for alternative relief seeking direction to the opponents to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question, namely, ground floor premises of 8, Hindu Colony, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380 009 to the applicant.2. This Court has issued notice on 10.03.2008 making it returnable on 19.03.2008. Mr. J.S. Yadav, learned advocate appeared for the Official Liquidator a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1987Guj205; (1986)1GLR206
ORDER1. Is there any virtue in insisting upon the strict compliance of procedure requirement against the considerations of substantial justice The question has arisen in the background of almost unending struggle between a landlord and a tenant.The petitioner is a tenant against whom ,the respondent-landlord filed Civil Suit No. 460 of 1979 in the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Narol. The respondent-landlord filed the suit for eviction of suit premises which consist of two rooms. The premises are situated in Odhav locality of city of Ahmedabad. The rent of the suit premises is Rs. 57/- per month plus other taxes. The respondent-landlord alleged that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from December 12, 1978 till July 21, 1979. It was also alleged that the petitioner-tenant had not paid the taxes. The suit was filed on the ground that the petitioner-tenant was not ready and willing to pay the rent. Though a notice demanding the arrears of rent was served upon him, he neglected to pay the ...
Tag this Judgment!