Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.01 seconds)
Documents citing Eruch J. Bapasola And Anr. vs B.D. Mirchandani on 24 February, 1953

Sau. Nakabai vs Mahadu Sakharam Adsule And Ors. on 14 August, 1979

The three Judges' Bench in Damadilal's case, while overruling majority view of Shah, J. recorded in Anand Nivas case, as to the statutory tenant having no estate and interest in the suit premises, did not indicate any approval of the reasoning of Sarkar, J. Ratio of Damadilal's case, is binding on us being the later judgment of the coordinate Court, and as discussed earlier, supports the contention of Mr. Samant.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Goverdhan Sohan And Ors. vs Deputy Custodian General Of Evacuee ... on 14 October, 1959

(6) The learned Judge who dealt with this case based his doubt on the correctness of this decision partly on the fact that it apparently ignored the true position of a non-proprietor occupying the village site under the Customary Law and partly in consequences of a decision of Chagla C. J. and Shah J. in Eruch J. Bapasola v. B. D. Mirchandani, AIR 1954 Bom 56. In that case a Muslim was in occupation of a flat forming part of a property purchased by the petitioners in February, 1950 and on 22-9-1950 the petitioners gave a notice to the Muslim tenant terminating his tenancy as from 31-10-1950. Before this period expired the Muslim tenant was declared to be an evacuee on the 19th of October and on the 26th of October a notification was issued vesting his tenancy rights in the Custodian. In March 1952 the petitioners entered into possession of the flat and in April 1952 it was allotted by the Custodian to a displaced person. This order was challenged in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In these circumstances it was held:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1