Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.23 seconds)
Documents citing C.J. Ghadiali And Ors. vs Z.B. Wadiwalla on 24 July, 1981

Cawas Dhunjishaw Saher vs Keikobad C. Batliwala on 21 July, 1994

In the case of C.J. Ghadiali and others v. Z.B. Wadiawalla, reported in 1981 Mh.L.J. 876 - 1981 Bombay Cases Reporter, 956, Modi, J., took the view that the provisions of section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act provided for a right of succession different from the one under the ordinary law, and it must, therefore, follow that the right of possession also will be of the person who is a tenant under section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act. It was observed that the Bombay Rent Act was a statute which was supposed to be enacted as a temporary measure and so it was not enacted to last till repealed but for a limited period which was being extended from time to time. It would, therefore, follow that the special mode of succession provided by the Rent Act was not a permanent mode and the right of the heirs or legal representatives under the normal law as suspended and eclipsed till the preferential right conferred by section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act continued. In the light of this decision also it would follow that as far as the present controversy is concerned, for the limited purpose of section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act, it would be respondent Keikobad alone who would be entitled to be regarded as a tenant by virtue of the provisions of section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act,
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mrs. Mini Peter Philips And Ors. vs Dina J.S. Fanibanda And Ors. on 5 July, 2007

39. This judgment need not detain us long in view of the change in law thereafter in the case of C.J. Ghadiali and Ors. v. Z.B. Wadiwalla 1981 M.L.J. 876. The change in the law pursuant to the amendment in 1978 in Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act has resulted in an observation that the right of the heir is eclipsed by the provisions of Section 5(11)(c) in cases where the tenancy continues. Consequently, a member of the tenant's family residing with the deceased tenant at the time of the death of the deceased tenant becomes a tenant. If there is more than one such member, the determination of the tenancy would be, by agreement between the parties, and failing it by an order of the Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - R Dalvi - Full Document

K M Siddalingaswamy S/O Shree Shyala vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009

2: SE11': 8. EA . §\.€ahvssEm2a§'3;21a:§EZ£1jyg Ageé ahaut 53 j;_2ea1*s, S,' Qiihagigza Basaiah, E?fo9i{0tt1::r '§'m§ 'n, _ ~ . ._ ~ i{u.d3;igi'fa§1.sk; B33333; Bis: ._ ';._:::§::$?{>§m;3:'~é-"Es {8}; SH}. §3.E'4E.. §'4aWaz;, Aéél, E.1§3"P}.V_ This Czimslxaai yezgzaag as §flé§'£:" af§:ii3:VV.vS::_c§iefi 482 sf <:;r.§a 51% prayizlg its quash 'tha ;3mc€5%:ii:'s:2g '§".1A.'}.'g §'€ift".F€§§;§:3'§.j2Q€}8 pasacfl E33; i"§1::< J?v%%'{Z Kmifigi. ' §%eiis;:V;{ZV'fi.§*%.0:.}i§? E;ij';é".2§V:E§5$ 0%' Cz°.PwC., §:§'2;jj;T:§:g H; 3133? {E15 ihzfiaer §r:}C€¢d;i:1gs'. '£7{'Z"E*€ c§.'z";3__1j1E?ziTr{}8 §:{firaE'*é<3,L'%g{}§§ an size 536 ebf the »£§%2'§¥'C, %<Z':}.éQ":'.;_1?'gi',¢j£bi°< ?;i1€.:*'€&S?{2:;?s.,$§gf:'£€d fi3.€:r"::tifi. '§'%:e$€ $a$§=;$ ={%Qm__311::g_ €}ia':;r f0f admisaimz, Ehisé 5a8}=', "figs iifIism'€ méiée Tim fcriiQs;s:i;:g:« " ' ' GREEK . * A';§£"'%--%.£: accused in ?.C,?=§<f;.6i [ i2{}§8 {gen €316 féifi {sf Jéizfiifi 33: iv';3.1é1igi;"a:€5'§e§a4:}."€ ihig Caurt ufifisz" Smtéiczi 482 $1" {"3::§',C',, §3:°a}?§31g for ' '{';'%s:;:°¢1sf'}?:i:;.;g €I§:é grivate camisfiaina
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - K N Bhakthavatsala - Full Document

Mr. Romeo Pascol Kinny And Ors vs Smt.Savitri W/D Of Dr. Umashankar ... on 25 August, 2015

In the context of the amended provisions, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of C. J. Ghadiali & Ors. vs. Z. B. Wadiwalla 4 held that there was complete change in law since the decision in the case of Rajaram (supra) and after the 1978 Amendment, it is only in the absence of member of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of the death of the original tenant, that any heir of the deceased tenant acquires tenancy rights under the Rent Act. From this, it follows that under the unamended 1947 Act, the Division Bench of this Court had recognised that the provisions of 1947 Act were not made to supersede the rights to inheritance of tenancy vesting in the heirs on the death of the original tenant. Further, after 3 1977 Mh. L. J. 792 4 1981 Mh. L. J. 876 8/10 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2015 00:00:45 ::: DSS 919-cra-471-15 the amendment, such rights shall accrue to the legal heirs of the deceased tenant, only in the absence of member of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of his demise. In both situations, therefore, devolution of the tenancy upon the heirs was contemplated, except that after the 1978 amendment, the devolution upon the heirs in accordance with law of inheritance was made subject to absence of any member of the tenant's family using the tenanted premises for the purposes for which they were let out along with the original tenant, at the time of the demise of such original tenant.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - M S Sonak - Full Document

M/S. Dattakrupa Construction And Anr vs M/S Shah Velji Karman & Co on 22 July, 2015

In the context of the amended provisions, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of C. J. Ghadiali & Ors. vs. Z. B. Wadiwalla 6 held that there was complete change in law since the decision in the case of Rajaram (supra) and after the 1978 Amendment, it is only in the absence of member of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of the death of the original tenant, that any heir of the deceased tenant acquires tenancy rights under the Rent Act. From this, it follows that under the unamended 1947 Act, the Division Bench of this Court had recognised that the provisions of 1947 Act were not made to supersede the rights to inheritance of tenancy vesting in the heirs on the death of the original tenant. Further, after the amendment, such rights shall accrue to the legal heirs of the deceased tenant, only in the absence of member of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of his demise. In both 5 1977 Mh. L. J. 792 6 1981 Mh. L. J. 876 13/18 ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:53:29 ::: skc JUDGMENT-CRA-330-2015 situations, therefore, devolution of the tenancy upon the heirs was contemplated, except that after the 1978 amendment, the devolution upon the heirs in accordance with law of inheritance was made subject to absence of any member of the tenant's family using the tenanted premises for the purposes for which they were let out along with the original tenant, at the time of the demise of such original tenant. Accordingly, it is not possible to accept Mr. Datar's contention that tenancy in respect of the commercial premises can devolve only upon such member of the deceased tenant's family, who was using the premises along with the original tenant at the time of such original tenant's demise. Such restrictive interpretation, as noted earlier, is neither supported by the very text of the statutory provisions, nor by the authorities upon which reliance was placed for the purpose.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document
1