Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.02 seconds)

Abdul Rehman Shaikh vs Executive Engineer 'C-1' Division ... on 10 April, 2024

49) In the case of Sugrabai (supra), this Court has in terms ruled that a perusal of Section 95A of the Act, does not indicate that for issuance of notice to vacate under Section 95A of the said Act, the building is required to be in dilapidated condition. A plain reading of the said provision clearly indicates that a proposal to the Board for reconstruction of the building can be made by the owner of the building or members of the proposed housing society of the occupants of the said building for reconstruction of the building, after obtaining the written consent of not less than 70% of the total occupiers of the building.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - N J Jamadar - Full Document

Abdul Rehman Shaikh vs Executive Engineer 'C-1' Division ... on 15 April, 2024

49) In the case of Sugrabai (supra), this Court has in terms ruled that a perusal of Section 95A of the Act, does not indicate that for issuance of notice to vacate under Section 95A of the said Act, the building is required to be in dilapidated condition. A plain reading of the said provision clearly indicates that a proposal to the Board for reconstruction of the building can be made by the owner of the building or members of the proposed housing society of the occupants of the said building for reconstruction of the building, after obtaining the written consent of not less than 70% of the total occupiers of the building.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - N J Jamadar - Full Document
1