Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Punamchand Dahyalal Nanwati vs Ramanlal Balubhai And Ors. on 8 October, 1987

Anandrao Ganpatrao Sable vs Madhavrao Ramrao Kanase And Anr. on 22 November, 1988

The learned Counsel for the landlords Shri Thakkar, on the other hand, referred to my decision in Punamchand Dayelal Nanwati v. Ramanlal Balubhai and others, 1988 Maharashtra Rent Control Journal, 58 wherein I have considered the same question and after considering the Division Bench judgment in Smt. Padmadevi Sahnkarro Jadhav v. Kabalsing Garmilsing Sardarji relied on by the learned Counsel Shri Patankar and the Supreme Court decision in Choudhary Sahu (Dead) by Lrs.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shri Baban Sitaram Pande vs Smt. Saraswatibai Keshavrao Bhoirkar on 30 January, 1997

Considering that the judgment of this Court in Padmadevi's case is a judgment of the Division Bench, I am bound by it. I further find that this Court in Punamchand Nanawati's case has considered the judgment of the Division Bench in Padmadevi's case and has distinguished it on the ground that in Padmadevi's case, there was an award passed against the respondent which they could have challenged only by filing a cross-objection. Though I have some doubts about the ground on which the judgment in padmadevi's case has been distinguished, I need not, in the present case, go deeper into that aspect because, in my opinion, even if it is assumed that the Appellate Court could have reversed the finding of the trial "Court on the ground that the tenant had secured alternate accommodation, I find that there was no reason to revers that finding. It is to be seen that the petitioner is a barber by occupation. It is his case that he was using the demised premises for his residence and business though some members of his family had shifted to the village Akurdi which is far off from Pune city. The trial Court has held that from the business point of view, the premises at Akurdi were not suitable for the business. The finding of the trial Court, therefore, could have been disturbed by the Appellate Court only after reaching the conclusion that the premises at Akurdi were suitable for business also. I do not find any such finding being recorded by the Appellate Court. It is obvious that the premises which are situated in village Akurdi cannot be alternate to a shop in Pune city. Therefore, there was no material before the Appellate Court to reverse the finding of the trial Court in that regard.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1