Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing R.P. Ghosh vs Pramilabai Ravindra Puri And Ors. on 2 August, 1976

Abde Musa S/O Mulla Ali Saheb And Ors. vs Lrs. Of Shri Lalta Prasad (Smt. ... on 15 April, 2008

In para 10, the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of R.P. Ghosh v. Pramilabai Ravindra Puri and Ors. reported at 1976 Mh. L.J. 828, is considered at some length and observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench that Rent Control Order only provided that a notice of termination of tenancy could not be issued without written permission of Rent Controller are approved. The observations that filing of ejectment suit after giving notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, is not continuation of proceedings instituted before the Rent Controller but it is an independent and distinct proceeding, is also approved. The Hon'ble Apex Court has found that so far as suit for ejectment is concerned, the cause of action is not the ground on which permission is granted by the Rent Controller but termination of Page 1324 tenancy of tenant under Transfer of Property Act. It also approved the observations of Division Bench that in ejectment suit, the grounds of ejectment were irrelevant.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Deorao Pandurang Mangrulkar vs The Collector, Chandrapur And Anr. on 1 August, 1977

This case would not be applicable in the present dispute. The subsequent event has been taken into account in the sama proceeding but at the revisional stage. Here the position is quite different. The previous proceeding has come to a final close when permission was granted under Sub-clause (vi). The alleged change of circumstances is being taken into account in a quite different proceedings under Clause 23 and I feel this would not be possible. It was rightly urged on behalf of the petitioner that judicial propriety requires that a matter once decided by a competent Court is not reopened in another summary proceeding. Two more cases were also cited before me on behalf of the respondents. One is in R.P. Ghosh v. Smt. Pramilabai Ravindra Puri , while the other is in Sitaram Tensukhrai v. V.R. Bhoware , The matters involved in these decisions are quite different and I think that the principles enunciated in these decisions have no bearing with the controversy that is available here.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Dr. C.P. Bhargava, Nagpur Thr. ... vs M/S Chandak And Sons A H.U.F. Concern, ... on 2 May, 2018

08] As regards mis-description of the name of one of the partners, it is to be noted that the petitioner challenged the final order passed by the Rent Controller by preferring an appeal through its partner Shri V.K. Bhargava. Moreover, as held in Meghji Saha and R.P. Ghosi (supra), the said mis-description would not result in the original plaintiff being deprived of the relief of possession. The suit premises being the same and there being no dispute that the respondents were the owners thereof and that the firm was its tenant, the said factor cannot result in depriving the original plaintiffs of the relief of possession. 09] It is thus found that the Appellate Court has rightly held that the respondents were entitled for a decree for eviction. The proceedings initiated in the year 1993-94 on the ground of bona ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2018 01:14:53 ::: 10 wp.5304.17.jud fide need have ultimately been decided in favour of the original plaintiff. In absence of any jurisdictional error, there is no case made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. In the facts of the case, the petitioner is granted time of three months to vacate the suit premises.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document
1