Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing S. Hantukkumar Laxmikant Sharma vs Shah Kumudchandra Valchandbhai on 9 September, 1985

Dady Nowroji Adenwalla And Ors. vs Burjor H. Antia And Ors. on 12 June, 2001

The facts in the case of Shantukkumar L. Sharma (supra) are quite different from the facts of the present case. In that case the Plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises, alleging that the Defendant had never resided with the deceased tenant in the suit premises and that the Defendant was a trespasser. The Defendant on the other hand set up a plea of tenancy on the ground that he was residing along with the deceased tenant. The Civil Court, which tried the suit, held that the Defendant was a trespasser and the Plaintiffs were entitled to recover the possession of the suit premises from the Defendants.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - J A Patil - Full Document

Chhotalal Girdharlal Gheewala vs District Panchayat on 13 September, 1988

4. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, in my view, the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner has no substance. It is not necessary to consider the decision upon which the learned Advocate relies viz. Shantukkumar v. Kumudchandra [1986 (1)] 27(1) GLR 232, wherein the Court dealt with a claim of tenancy rights by virtue of provision of Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act. As the question was clearly required to be dealt with by the Court under the Rent Act, the Court held that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the said question. The learned Judge has 'discussed the rent-note Ex. 65 which provides that the suit property was let out to the defendant on yearly rent of Rs. 130/- for the purpose of Petrol Pump and other business and as per the said lease-deed the defendant was entitled to make necessary construction for business purpose. Hence it can be said that the petitioner is not under an obligation to construct a building on land which is let out to them. It is not a lease of land under a building agreement.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - M B Shah - Full Document
1