Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Pralhad Lalchand Chavan vs Iqbal Hussain Inayat Hussain Badri on 26 July, 1996

Abde Musa S/O Mulla Ali Saheb And Ors. vs Lrs. Of Shri Lalta Prasad (Smt. ... on 15 April, 2008

12. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pralhad v. Iqbal Hussain (supra) squarely covers the controversy before me. There the appellate Court under Rent Control Order granted permission on 16.12.1988 and accordingly tenancy was also terminated by issuing notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act vide notice dated 3.3.1989 by the end of tenancy month i.e. April 1989. The suit was filed on 2.5.1989 for eviction of tenant. The trial Court directed tenant there to vacate by judgment and decree dated 31.1.1990 and appeal against it was dismissed by District Judge, Amravati, on 24.3.1994. In Civil Revision Application No. 616 of 1994, this High Court found that the subsequent event of purchase of another house by the appellant . landlord was not considered and it was found that as another premises was secured for his bonafide requirement, during pendency of litigation, specially in eviction proceedings, such purchase was significant. The High Court, therefore, set aside that order and remanded matter back to lower appellate Court to consider the subsequent events. This order of remand was Page 1323 questioned before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the scheme of Clause 13 of Rent Control Order in para 8, which is as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Chandrabhagabai & Ors vs Ramakrishna & Ors on 29 July, 1998

Learned appellate Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that despite the finding of the Rent Control Authorities that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between Narayan and Suryabhan, the Civil Court, in proceeding pursuant to the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act could reconsider the question and it was still open for the appellants (predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents) to raise the contention that they are not tenants of the plaintiffs in the suit premises and that decision of the Rent Controller was not binding on the Civil Court. Unfortunately for the appellants the aforesaid adverse decision rendered about jurisdiction of the civil court in Civil appeal No. 162 of 1967 has remained final between the parties as the plaintiffs did not think it fit to challenge the same higher up. On the contrary, the said decision was accepted and on that basis and in the light of the finding reached in Civil appeal No. 162 of 1967 that there was no landlord and tenant relation between Narayan and Suryabhan, the present suit which is third set of proceedings, was filed by Narayan and other plaintiffs treating Suryabhan and others as persons remaining in unauthorised occupation of the suit rooms. In other words, plaintiffs themselves gave ago by to their case about tenancy of the defendants and tried to rely only upon their title to the suit property and sought eviction on the strength of their title in the present proceedings. Consequently, on point no. 2, it must be held on the facts of this case that the finding of the 4th Extra Asst. Judge in Civil appeal No. 162 of 1967 to the effect that there was no landlord and tenant relationship between Narayan and Suryabhan has remained binding between the parties and being res judicata cannot be reopened in the present proceedings. Point No. 2 is answered in the negative as aforesaid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 17 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Padam S/O Roshanlal Ghai And Others vs Dr. Balasaheb S/O Wasudeorao Motghare on 12 February, 2021

In these peculiar facts the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants in Pralhad Lalchand Chavan v. Iqbal Hussain Inayat Hussain Badri AIR 1996 SC 2547, Ratilal Narbheram v. Welji Nagji AIR 1975 BoM. 218, Ramdayal Gulabachand Khandelwal and ors. vs. Mahendra s/o Badrinarayan Khandelwal and ors. (2009) 2 MH.L.J. 782, M/s S. V. Kedari and Co. Nagpur and anr. v. Mohammad Ibrahim and ors. AIR 1988 Bom.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document
1