Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing P.D. Aswani vs Kavashah Dinshah And Ors. on 18 December, 1953

Ram Krishna Shukla And Ors. vs Thakur Sri Ramjanki Through Sri ... on 13 September, 1956

8. The Indian decisions, amongst others, are: P. D. Aswani v. Kavashah Dineshah, AIR 1954 Bom 426 (C) and Lakhidas. v. Smt. Jyotsnaben Chhaganlal, 'AIR 1954 Kutch 7 (D). In the former case, like Section 6(2) of the present Act, Section 15 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) also contained the words "it shall not be lawful. ...." Section 15 of that Act provided that "it shall not be lawful after the coming into operation of this Act for any tenant to sublet. ..." Changle C. J., held that on the plain construction of Section 15 there could be no doubt that sub-letting had been prohibited by law after Act 57 of 1947 came into force.
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 4 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Aditya Finance & Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. ... on 17 July, 1998

(7) This section prohibits subletting and makes it unlawful for a tenant to assign or to transfer his interest in the premises let to him. The nonobstante clause would mean that even if any other law allowed subletting e.g. Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act the subletting would, because of Section 15, be unlawful. This would apply to contracts also as all contracts would fall under the provisions of the law relating to contracts i.e. Contract Act. An agreement contrary to the provisions of that Section (Section 15) would be unenforceable as being in contravention of the express provisions of the Act which prohibits it. It is not permissible to any person to rely upon a contract the making of which the law prohibits. (Section 23 of the Contract Act.) (8) Counsel for the appellant contended that the view of the Bombay High Court in P. D.Aswani v. Kavashah Dinshah, 56 Bom LR 467 : was erroneous and that the correct rule was laid down by that Court in Cooper v. Shiavaz Cowasji Cambatta, AIR 1949 Bombay 131. That was a case under Section 10 of Bombay Rents. Hotel Rates and Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act (Bom VII of 1944) which in express terms allowed subletting as follows :--
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - K S Gupta - Full Document

Waman Shriniwas Kini vs Ratilal Bhagwandas & Co on 16 February, 1959

This section prohibits sub-letting and makes it un-lawful for a tenant to assign or to transfer his interest in the premises let to him. The non-obstante clause would mean that even if any other law allowed subletting, e. g., s. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, the sub-letting would, because of s. 15, be unlawful. This would appy to contracts also as all contracts would fall under the provisions of the law relating to contracts, i. e., Contract Act. An agreement contrary to the provisions of that section (s. 15) would be unenforceable as being in contravention of the express provision of the Act which prohibits it. It is not permissible to any person to rely upon a contract the making of which the law prohibits (s. 23 of the Contract Act). Counsel for the appellant contended that the view of the Bombay High Court in P. D. Aswani v. Kavashah Dinshah Mulla (1) was erroneous and that the correct rule was laid down by that Court in Cooper V. Shiavax Cambatta (2). That was a case under s. 10 of Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act (Bom. VII of 1944) which in ex- press terms allowed sub-letting as follows :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 115 - J L Kapur - Full Document

Sardar Tota Singh vs M/S Gold Field Leather Works, Bombay on 15 January, 1985

In the present case, it was conceded on behalf of Gold Field before the Appellate Bench of the Court. Of Small Causes that Manekchand was a lawful sub-tenant He could not have been a lawful sub-tenant by virtue of sub-s. (2) of s. 15 because on May 21, 1959 he was not in possession of the premises, which in fact had already passed as early as 1952 into the possession of Tota Singh. Manek chand could have been lawful sub-tenant only on the assumption that the sub- tenancy was permitted under the contract between Gold Gold Field and their landlord. As the existence of such a term in the contract would be a question of fact, the concession by counsel for Gold Field must be regarded as binding in this case on Gold Field. It is urged for the respondent that the concession made by counsel for Field can be of no avail because any agreement by a tenant creating a sub-tenancy, being directly opposed to sub-s. (I) of s. 15 as originally enacted, would be void The submission, it seems to us, is without force. It must be remembered that sub-s. (I) of s. 15 was amended by inserting the words "but subject to any contract to the contrary" in 1959 retrospectively, the words being deemed always to have been inserted in that sub- section. We must take it by reason of the legal fiction employed that those words were already part of the sub- section when Gold Field agreed to sub-let the premises to Manekchand. The cases, P.D. Aswani v. Kavashah Dinshah Mulla(l) and Waman Shriniwas Kini v. Ratilal Bhagwandas and Co.,(2) on which learned counsel for the respondent relies, were decided before sub-s. (1) of s. 15 was amended and therefore did not take into account the effect of such amendment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1