Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.33 seconds)
Documents citing Surendra Kumar Jain vs Royce Pereira on 19 November, 1997

Gursharan Kaur vs H.B. Singh on 18 February, 1999

8.2.3. These observations have been quoted again with approval in Suren der Kumar Jain Vs. Royce Pereira, . In that case also the respondent informed the Corporation in tax proceedings that he was paying rent of Rs. 200/ per month. It was observed that the said statement even if true, stood rebutted by appellant's letter dated 31st May, 1974 admitting that he was in possession as a 'paying guest'. In the case in hand, apart from payment of house tax and self serving statement, the claim of the defendant inconsistent with the facts and circumstances.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - S N Kapoor - Full Document

Shri Nariman Hormusji (Since Deceased ... vs Behram-Gore Pochkhanwala, Only Legal ... on 11 August, 2005

19. Both the Courts in the present case, have nor considered this submission made by the petitioners to grant them the protection of status as "licensee" and/or "sub-tenant" as contemplated under the Bombay Rent Act. The extract of the Apex Court's decision in Surendra Kumar (supra) makes it amply clear " Page 116 that the paying guests like the present ones are not entitled to be treated as licensees. In the present case, the respondent-owner was able to prove the case of paying guests. The petitioners-tenants were also unable to support their case of licensee and/or sub-tenant.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Feroze N. Dotivala vs P.M. Wadhwani And Ors on 3 December, 2002

It had also referred to the decision in Kent v. Fittall Anr., case of this court referred to is reported in [1997] 8 SCC 759, Surendra Kumar Jain v. Royce Pereira. Apart from other facts there was an admission that the person was occupying the premises as a paying guest. It was also found as fact that one of the bedrooms could be reached only passing through the accommodation with the occupier but besides these facts the observations relevant for the purpose of this case are:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 39 - B Kumar - Full Document

Anandram Chandanmal Munot & Anr vs Bansilal Chunilal Kabra(Since ... on 19 November, 1999

It is his tenancy which is determined and the allegation is that the first respondent inducted the second respondent to the suit premises. In the suit also it is the first respondent against whom ground for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 12 of the Act is advanced. The first Appellate Court rightly held that a money decree for non-payment of rent cannot be passed against the second respondent when it was the first respondent who was in arrears of rent as claimed by the appellants and that the second respondent becomes liable to pay rent of the premises only from the date tenancy of the first respondent is determined. Then Mr. Jain wanted to invoke the doctrine of privity of estate and in that connection he referred to a decision of this Court in Surendra Kumar Jain vs. Royce Perira [(1997) 8 SCC 759]. In this case the Court said that findings as arrived at by the appellate court are findings of fact and were not liable to be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that case while the respondent-owner had filed a suit against the appellant for possession and for the arrears of paying guest charges, appellant had contended that he was not a paying guest but was a tenant and in support of his plea he relied on a letter written by the owner to the Bombay Municipal Corporation in tax proceedings where he said that the appellant was paying rent of Rs.200/- per month. The respondent-owner, however, produced a letter of the appellant wherein he admitted that he was a paying guest. On this finding the Court dealt with the question of the doctrine of privity of estate as under
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha & Ors vs Manharbala Jeram Dmodar & Anr on 13 August, 2013

45. The expression “licensee” has also been explained by this Court in Surendra Kumar Jain v. Royce Pereira (1997) 8 SCC 759. In P.R. Aiyar’s the Law Lexicon, Second Edition 1997, License has been explained as “A license in respect to real estate is defined to be an authority to do a particular act or series of acts on another’s land without possessing any estate therein”. The word “licensee” has been explained in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition to mean a person who has a privilege to enter upon land arising from the permission or consent, express, or implied, of the possessor of land but who goes on the land for his own purpose rather than for any purpose or interest of the possessor. Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, Sixth Edition, Vol. 2 provides the meaning of word “licensee” to mean a licensee is a person who has permission to do an act which without such permission would be unlawful.
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 69 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Anandram Chandanmal Munot & Anr vs Bansilal Chunilal Kabra(Since ... on 19 November, 1999

It is his tenancy which is determined and the allegation is that the first respondent inducted the second respondent to the suit premises. In the suit also it is the first respondent against whom ground for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 12 of the Act is advanced. The first Appellate Court rightly held that a money decree for non-payment of rent cannot be passed against the second respondent when it was the first respondent who was in arrears of rent as claimed by the appellants and that the second respondent becomes liable to pay rent of the premises only from the date tenancy of the first respondent is determined. Then Mr. Jain wanted to invoke the doctrine of privity of estate and in that connection he referred to a decision of this Court in Surendra Kumar Jain vs. Royce Perira [(1997) 8 SCC 759]. In this case the Court said that findings as arrived at by the appellate court are findings of fact and were not liable to be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that case while the respondent-owner had filed a suit against the appellant for possession and for the arrears of paying guest charges, appellant had contended that he was not a paying guest but was a tenant and in support of his plea he relied on a letter written by the owner to the Bombay Municipal Corporation in tax proceedings where he said that the appellant was paying rent of Rs.200/- per month. The respondent-owner, however, produced a letter of the appellant wherein he admitted that he was a paying guest. On this finding the Court dealt with the question of the doctrine of privity of estate as under
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document
1