Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1972Guj209
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the original plaintiffs against the opponent-defendant (tenant) under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act:), against the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Appeal No.132 of 1964, dismissing that appeal with costs and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No.1728 of 1957.2. Both the courts below have refused to pass a decree for eviction on the ground that the opponent-tenant having raised a dispute regarding the standard rent within one month, from the date of the receipt of the notice, Ex.41 given by the landlords for determining the tenancy and calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent, for a period over six months. According to the two Courts below, there having been raised such a dispute regarding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1972CriLJ1101
ORDERJ.H. Sheth, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Panch-mahals at Godhra in Criminal Revision Application No. 5 of 1971, recommending that the order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate. First Class, (Railways). Godhra on two statements of the accused, dt. 19th April, 1970 & 7th October, 1970 one of opponent Yusuf Abdul Rahim and the other of opponent Abdul Rehman in Cri. Case No. 1329 of 1970, sought to be produced on behalf of the complainant, were inadmissible in evidence, be set aside, and to direct the learned Magistrate to admit them into evidence and to proceed further with the trial.2. The two opponents were tried in the aforesaid criminal case before the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Railways). Godhra. for an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (No. 29 of 1966) (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid prosecution were as under:The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1971)12GLR397
N.K. Vakil, J.1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Application is the original defendant No. 2. Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 were plaintiffs and opponent No. 4 was the original defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs, filed Regular civil suit No. 12 of 1964 to recover possession of the suit premises which was a shop situated at Nalia in Kutch District from the defendants on the grounds that (i) defendant No. 1 had illegally transferred the tenancy rights to defendant No. 2 (ii) the premises were reasonably and bona fide required for personal use by the plaintiff No. 1 and (iii) the tenant was in arrears of rent for a period of six months and more. The suit was defended by defendant No. 2 inter alia on the ground that the defendant No. 1 had retransferred to him his right in the suit shop as a going concern together with good-will and the tenancy rights and as such it was transfer permissible by law. The trial Court held that the suit premises were not required by the plaintiff reasonably and bona fide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1969)10GLR336
V.R. Shah, J.1. These two Second Appeals arise out of the two suits brought by the respondent in each appeal to recover possession of certain shops from the appellant under the provisions of Section 13(1)(h) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Saurashtra Act'). The appellant is in possession of two shops in he carries on business and he is also in possession of one shop where he stores coal. These shops originally belonged to one Popatlal and his two brothers. The respondent plaintiff purchased the whole building in which these shops are situate by two different sale-deeds, paying aggregate sale price of Rs. 55,000/-. One sale deed was executed on 31-3-1958; while the other was executed on 1-11-1958. In respect of the two shops in which the appellant-defendant carries on business, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 360 of 1958 on 27-10 1958; while in respect of the shop in which coal is stored by the appellant, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1970)11GLR87
B.R. Sompura, J.1. The appellant-defendant Khambhalia Municipality, has filed the present appeal against the decree of eviction passed by the learned District Judge at Jamnagar in Civil Appeal No. 256/62, by which he reversed the decree of dismissal of the suit, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Khambhalia in Civil Suit No. 55 of 1961.2. An interesting question, whether Part II of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, applies to premises taken on lease by a municipality or not, has arisen in this appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming that the defendant municipality had taken on rent the suit premises for its office and as the tenancy has been duly terminated by a notice dated 24th July 1961, the defendant should be asked to hand over the possession of the suit premises. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the premises were rented by the municipality for its office and so the provisions of the Act would not apply to the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1968)9GLR674
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This petition under Article 227 is directed against the order at Ex. 4 dated 27th April 1967 by respondent No 1, The Regional Transport Authority, Rajkot, hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal'.2. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under:The petitioner Adambhai Ranabhai is a citizen of India carrying on business of operating Stage Carriages (buses) by operating his buses on the route Kunkavav to Bilkha under stage carriage permit issued by respondent No. 1 since 1958 in the name and style of M/s. New Bagasara Transport Company. By the order, dated 1st April 1964, respondent No. 1 had granted renewal of the said permit to the petitioner for a period of three years and the appeal against the said decision by respondent No, 2, The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' had been dismissed by the order, dated 6th April 1965. The said permit was due to expire and, therefore, the petitioner filed an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1968)9GLR777
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These petitions raise important questions of law relating to the validity of Clauses 3, 14A and 14B of the Cotton Control Order, 1955 and the Notification dated 6th July 1966 issued by the Textile Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred under Clauses 3, 4, 13, 14A and 17 of the said Order as amended by the subsequent Notification dated 5th December 1966. They also challenge the validity of order of compulsory sale of ginned cotton made in some cases by the Assistant Enforcement Officer and in others, by the Assistant Director under Clause 14A of the said Order. The facts giving rise to these petitions are identical and so also are most of the questions arising in them and they were, therefore, beard together. The main arguments were advanced in Petition No. 434. of 1967 and the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the other petitions were allowed to supplement those arguments as also to advance further arguments bearing upon the que...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR729
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These petitions challenge the validity of acquisitions made by the Government of Gujarat for the construction of Gandhinagar, the new capital of Gujarat. The facts giving rise to the petitions are identical barring only the difference in the survey numbers of the lands sought to be acquired and the dates of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquiring such lands and it will, therefore, be sufficient to state the facts of Petition No. 1003 of 1965 which has been heard as the main petition and in which the arguments have been principally advanced. The petitioner in this petition owned at all material times several lands bearing different Survey numbers situate in village Pethapur, Taluka Gandhinagar, District Gandhinagar. By a notification dated 10th March 1965 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government notified that the said lands were likely to be needed for the public purpose, namely, construction of proposed G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR500
N.M. Miabhoy, C.J.1. This is a group of twenty-three writ petitions, each of which is filed by a landholder in the city of Ahmedabad, challenging in each the validity, on the ground that a few sections of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Bombay Act No. 59 of 1949 (hereafter called the Corporations Act), are ultra vires, of a notice or notices issued by the Commissioner, the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad (hereafter called the Municipal Commissioner) under Section 212 of the Corporal ions Act, requiring each property-holder to show cause why his building or buildings or a part or parts thereof, which were within the regular line of a public street, should not be pulled down and the land within the said line acquired by him. The facts giving rise to these petitions are the same in a majority of cases and are similar in others, and a majority of the questions of law raised in each of the petitions is the same and the other questions of law are simila...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR370
A.R. Bakshi, J.1. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 958 of 1966 was the Inamdar and owner of the village called Saijpur Bogha and the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 959 of 1966 were the tenants of the lands belonging to the Inamdar of the village. In 1942-43 certain lands out of this village were requisitioned for the purpose of construction of an aerodrome and notifications were issued for the purpose, whereafter possession of the lands was taken. In 1949, it was decided to acquire these lands, whereupon notifications dated 16th March 1949 were published in the Bombay Government Gazette dated 31st March 1949 whereby it was proposed to acquire the said lands for the purpose mentioned therein and it was declared that on the publication of the notifications, the said lands vested in the Government as mentioned therein. It may be mentioned that the original order of requisition was passed under the Defence of India Act, 1939 and as that Act had already expired,...
Tag this Judgment!