Supreme Court of India
Ramniklal Devchand And Others vs Board Of Trustees Of Port Of Mormugao on 30 April, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC, SUPL. (1) 506, AIRONLINE 1993 SC 152, 2006 (9) SCC 219, (1995) 2 REN CR 60, (1996) 1 REN CJ 176, 1995 SCFBRC 169, 1995 HRR 309, (1996) 1 RENCJ 178, (1996) 1 RENTLR 160, 1995 SCFBRC 177, 1994 SCC (SUPP) 2 638, 1995 HRR 312, (1995) 2 RENTLR 697, 1994 SCC (SUPP) 2 444, (1995) 1 ALL RENTCAS 329, 1994 SCC (SUPP) 1 506, 1994 SCC (SUPP) 2 483, (1995) 1 ALL RENTCAS 331, (1995) 2 RENCR 419, 1995 SCFBRC 171, (1996) 1 RENTLR 211
Author: R.M. Sahai
Bench: R.M. Sahai, N Venkatachala
PETITIONER: RAMNIKLAL DEVCHAND AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF MORMUGAO DATE OF JUDGMENT30/04/1993 BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) VENKATACHALA N. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 506 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER Initiation of proceedings for eviction of petitioners in 1975 filed in the civil court have been assailed as provisions of Public Premises and Eviction Act having been made applicable to Bombay Port Trust in 1980 the civil court ceased to have jurisdiction. Learned counsel urged that the bar under Section 15 of the Act being on entertaining any act or proceeding and the word 'entertain' having been interpreted in Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punnu Sahu (dead) through legal representatives' to mean the date of hearing the proceedings could not have been continued after 1980. The point was not permitted to be raised by the High Court as this question was not agitated in the trial court. In our opinion, the High Court did not commit any error in taking this view. We find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.
Court Master