Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Mahalinga Bandappa vs Venkatesh Waman on 9 October, 1956

Mansuri Ismail Gulamnabi And Anr. vs Heirs Of Decd. Vithalbhai Laljibhai ... on 27 September, 1973

This decision of the Supreme Court over-rules the view taken by Raju, J. in the above referred case, and, therefore, the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the above referred case of Mahalinga v. Venkatesh should prevail. Under the circumstances, the view taken by the lower appellate court that the suit premises are governed by the provisions of Part II of the Rent Act, must be confirmed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maganlal Narandas Thakkar And Anr. vs Arjan Bhanji Kanbi on 10 December, 1968

15. Mr. J.R. Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent and Mr. S. N. Shelat, an advocate of this Court who also appears on behalf of the landlord in some other case and intervened in this case, relied upon the scheme of Sections 12 and 13 of (he Saurashtra Rent Control Act and urged that if the tenant were to sub-let the premises or a part thereof after coming in operation of the Act, the very act of sub-letting would entitle the landlord to recover possession from the tenant and that it is not necessary that the sub-tenant must be on the premises when the suit is filed. They referred to a series of decisions both by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court which now clearly lay down the effect of Sections 12 and 13 of the Rent Control Act. These decisions have now established that Section 12 of the Rent Control Act merely puts an impediment in the way of the landlord to recover possession, even though the right to recover possession becomes vested in him on a lawful termination of tenant's tenancy under the provisions of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is also now well established that Section 13 provides for those circumstances on proof of which that impediment in the way of the landlord to recover possession is removed and the personal right of possession which the statute gave to the tenant is destroyed. It was urged by them that the words "has sub-let" only mean that there must be an act of sub-letting at sometime and that it does not require that the sub-tenant must continue to be on the property on the date when the suit is filed. Mr. Nanavati referred to Mahalinga Bandappa v. Venkatesh Woman . In that case the Court has observed in para 9 as follows:
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Bhabhutmal Rikhbaji Sharma And Anr. vs Manubhai Madhavji Patel And Ors. on 24 April, 1979

In support of this contention, reliance has been sought to be placed on the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Mahalinga Bandappa Lakhannavar v. Venkatesh Woman Karnataki (1956) 59 B.L.R. 227, where the Division Bench speaking through Vyas J. while negativing the contentions urged on behalf of the landlord that mere non-payment of the rent would expose the tenant to eviction, observed as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Panchal Mohanlal Ishwardas vs Maheshwari Mills Ltd. on 13 December, 1961

28. Mr. M.P. Amin also contended before me relying on a decision of a Division TJench of the High Court of Bombay in Mahalinga Bandappa v. Venkatesh Woman that even if the defendant was not entitled to the benefit of any of the provisions, contained in Section 12 the plaintiffs could not yet recover possession of the premises from the defendant unless the plaintiffs brought the case within one of the provisions of Section 13. The contention of Mr. M.P. Amin was that the provisions of Section 12 merely contained grounds disentitling the landlord from claiming possession of premises from the tenant but the absence of such grounds disentitling the landlord from claiming possession of premises from the tenant was no ground entitling the landlord to ask for possession and that if the landlord wanted to ask for possession it was necessary for the landlord to bring his case within one of the provisions of Section 13 and that it was not enough for the landlord to base his claim for possession upon the absence of grounds which would disentitle the landlord under Section 12 from claiming possession. Mr. M.P. Amin urged that according to this construction the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover possession of the premises from the defendant even if the case fell within the provisions of Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 12 since the plaintiffs had not made out any ground entitling them to recover possession of the premises from the defendant under Section 13.
Gujarat High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 13 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Sanmukhlal K. Darji vs District Panchayat, Surat And Anr. on 21 July, 2000

The said notification was published on the 3rd April, 1980. From that date onwards, the provisions of Part II of the Bombay Rent Act was made applicable to the areas of Gram Panchayats, Nagar Panchayats, Nagar Palikas and Municipal Corporations in the State. It was also specifically provided in that notification that provisions of Part II of the said Act shall be applicable to the premises let to the Government of Gujarat or to any Gram Panchayat, Nagar Panchayat, Nagar Palika, Municipal Corporation or Local Authority in that area of the State. The judgment was rendered on the 31st December, 1981. The conclusion of the learned trial Judge that the Rent Act would apply by virtue of the notification only to the suits pending on 3-4-1980, therefore, cannot be accepted. It appears mat me learned trial Judge committed an error in discerning the observations made in Mahalinga Bandappa v. Venkatesh Woman Karnataki, 59 BLR 227, wherein it was observed thus :-
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A L Dave - Full Document

Sanmukhlal K. Darji vs District Panchayat on 21 July, 2000

The said notification was published on the 3rd April, 1980. From that date onwards, the provisions of Part II of the Bombay Rent Act was made applicable to the areas of Gram Panchayats, Nagar Panchayats, Nagar Palikas and Municipal Corporations in the State. It was also specifically provided in that notification that provisions of Part II of the said Act shall be applicable to the premises let to the Government of Gujarat or to any Gram Panchayat, Nagar Panchayat, Nagar Palika, Municipal Corporation or Local Authority in that area of the State. The judgment was rendered on the 31st December, 1981. The conclusion of the learned Trial Judge that the Rent Act would apply by virtue of the notification only to the suits pending on 3.4.1980, therefore, cannot be accepted. It appears that the learned Trial Judge committed an error in discerning the observations made in Mahalinga Bandappa v. Venkatesh Waman Karnataki, 59 BLR 227, wherein it was observed thus:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A L Dave - Full Document

Smt. Shakuntala S. Tiwari vs Hem Chand M. Singhania on 6 May, 1987

Article 66, according to the appellant, contemplates an immediate fight to recover possession. Breach of a condition must lead to an immediate right to possession without more. This would not be a determination in law according to the appellant. Section 13 of the Rent Act contemplated, however, two conditions being fulfilled one is a ground for ejectment subsisting and the other is the Court's satisfaction which is a condition precedent before which there is a no immedi- ate right to possession. Reliance in support of this propo- sition was placed on Sharoop Dass Mondal v. Joggessur Roy Chowdhry, I.L.R. 26 Calcutta 564 at 568; Annamalai Pathar v. Sri-la-sri 314 Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi A vergal and another, A.I.R. 1937 Madras 295 at 297; Mahalinga Bandappa Lakhannavar v. Venkatesh Waman Karnataki, 59 B.L.R. 227 at 233; Bahadur Singh & Anr. v. Muni Subrat Dass & Anr., [1969] 2 S.C.R. 432 at 436; Kaushalaya Devi & Ors. v. Shri K.L. Bansal, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 1048 at 1050 and Ferozi Lal Jain v. Man Mal and another, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 794 at 795 and 796. Under section 13 of the Rent Act, possession is not recoverable only for breach of a condition, and it is recoverable on fulfilment and not breach of a condition precedent to the Court's satisfaction, according to counsel for the appellant. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that section 13(1) of the Rent Act was to be contrasted with section 12(1)--recovery of possession under section 13(1) was not directly upon a breach of condition of tenancy, but only upon the Court's satisfaction that a ground for recovery of possession was made out. Under section 12(1), however, a landlord is not entitled to recover possession so long as the tenant observed the "conditions of tenancy". It was further submitted that section 13 is subject to sections 15 and 15A of the Rent Act if the landlord and the tenant respectively have fulfilled (not breached) according to the counsel, the provisions of these two sections, no suit for ejectment will lie. It was urged that again showed that section 13(1) of the Rent Act contained conditions that were to be fulfilled before a landlord can recover possession for a tenant's breach of condition. Section 13(1) contained grounds for eviction of a tenant which need not be for breach of any condition. According to the appellant only one article for recovery of possession is reserved under the Limitation Act by a landlord from a tenant, that is article 139 of the Limitation Act, 1908. This article is the exact predecessor of article 67. Article 66 is a general article, says the appellant, which does not apply to landlord or tenant and it was further submitted that when a specific article applied, a general article should not be applied specially when it was not free from doubt. Some authorities were referred to in this behalf.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 34 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 Next