Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (1.91 seconds)
Documents citing Vasant Pratap Pandit vs Dr Anant Trimbak Sabnis on 12 April, 1994

Mrs.Mina Srinivasan Krishnan vs Arun Bhaskar Adarkar on 16 June, 2014

106 Mr.Madon not only derives support from the judgment of the learned Single Judge which we have referred and not approved of, but he submits that the learned Single Judge has relied on the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and they are binding on us. In that regard he refers to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Vasant Pratap Pandit v/s Dr.Anant Trimbak Sabnis reported in 1994(3) SCC 481. Mr.Madon's reliance on this judgment is somewhat misplaced. In that the Honourable Supreme Court was concerned with the correctness of the judgment rendered by this Court. The question was, whether, the tenancy rights under the Bombay Rent Act can be demised by a Will. The facts have been referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3. One Tara Bai was a tenant of the suit premises. She died issueless. She left behind a Will ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2014 23:29:31 ::: *93* app.312.12.scd&gsk.os.db bequeathing her properties including tenancy right in the said premises to her sister's son Gopal and appointing the Plaintiff-appellant, her brother's son, as executor thereof. The Respondent/ Defendant who happened to be grandson of a sister of the legatee and his wife were staying with Tara Bai in the disputed premises. After death of Tara Bai, the Appellant- Vasant called upon the Respondent to vacate the premises and on his refusal, he instituted the suit for eviction in the City Civil Court at Mumbai. The Respondent resisted the suit principally on the ground that the bequest of tenancy rights amounted to "transfer" and it was impermissible under Section 15. Therefore, the Appellant could not claim his eviction.
Bombay High Court Cites 116 - Cited by 3 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Shantaram Ganpat Gujar And Anr. vs Sarla Jaysen Rele And Ors. on 20 April, 2026

LPA 143-02.DOC However, in understanding the concept of 'tenant's family', one of the yardsticks to be applied was of nearness felt by the tenant with the "relatives" residing with him at the time of his death and in such context, an observation was made that the bond relationship determines the status and not merely the blood relationship. However, such observation is required to be understood on a holistic reading of the decision as referred by the Court and in the context of what would constitute to the 'tenant's family'. Certainly such observations can not in any manner be read to provide a different meaning to what has been held by the Supreme Court in Vasant Pratap Pandit Vs. Dr. Anant Trimbak Sabnis (supra). Thus, this judgment would not assist the appellants.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Shri. Vasant Sadashiv Joshi & Ors vs Shri. Yashwant Shankar Barve (Since ... on 3 January, 2020

In support of the above contentions, reliance is placed on the following decisions in (i) Gool Rustomji Lala vs Smt Rustomji Lala6; (ii) Kanti Bhattacharya & ors vs K.S.Parmeshwaran & anr7 (iii) Vimalabai Keshav Gokhale vs Avinash Krishnaji Binjewale & ors8; (iv) Smt Parvatibai w/o Bandu Marathe vs Smt Radhabai Chaggan Bhandarkar (decd) by her legal heirs 9; (v) Shamkant Tukaram Naik vs Dayanabai Shamsan Dighodkar (Smt) 10; (vi) Urmi Deepak Kadia vs State of Maharashtra11; (vii) Ramesh Ramgopal Daga vs Prashant Baburao Khandare ; (viii) Nandkishor Savalaram Malu 12 vs Hanumanmal G.Biyani 13 ; (ix) Vasant Pratap Pandit vs Dr.Anant Trimbak Sabnis14;
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

L.R. Of Mishrimal vs L.Rs. Of Sukh Lal And Ors. on 14 July, 2006

In that background considering spirit and scope of protection intended to be extended by Section 3(vii) of the Act, in my view, since it is clearly established from the judgments referred to above specially Vasant Pratap's case, that testamentary disposition is also a nature of assignment, different from one may from inter vivos, and since assignment is prohibited by Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, such assignee under the will cannot be indirectly allowed to claim protection, under the garb of claiming to be an heir.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 40 - Cited by 2 - N P Gupta - Full Document

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

27. Thus, as far as the mother of the petitioner Cawas Saher, namely, Aloo is concerned, it is not possible to hold, on the evidence on record, that she continued to be a member of her parent's family even after her marriage in 1943. Unfortunately, she predeceased her mother on 16th May, 1957. Thus, when Meherbai died on 6th December, 1960 her son, respondent Keikobad, was the only member of her family residing with her in the premises within the meaning of section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Rent Act. It is thus not possible to accept the second contention of Shri Jahagirdar that the mother of the petitioner, Cawas Saher, would be entitled to claim the benefit of the provisions of section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Rent Act. As stated earlier, when Cawasshaw Batliwala died on 1st May, 1943, the Rent Act of 1947 had not come into force and there was no question of the petitioner's mother Aloo claiming the benefit of the provisions of section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Rent Act. Apart from the evidence on record which shows that Keikobad alone was treated as the tenant, in a series of judgments, this Court has taken a consistent view that for the purpose of section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Rent Act, it can only be one person who can be regarded as a tenant. This has been so held all along right from the first case of Gool Rustomji Lala upto the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Vasant Pratap Pandit v. Dr. Anant Trimbak Sabnis, . The consistent view reflected in these judgments is that for the limited purpose of section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Rent Act the general law of inheritence is to some extent departed from. This has been so held in many cases to which I propose to make a brief reference while dealing with the third contention of the petitioner. The second contention has, thus, no merit.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sadbuddhi Brahmesh Wagh, Rajadhiraj ... vs Sheela Mahabaleshwar Wagh (Since ... on 28 March, 2003

25. In this submission, the sale of a going concern under the proviso to Section 15(1) was fully permissible. It cannot be faulted on the basis of the alleged claim of Brahmesh to the tenancy to the exclusion of others under Section 5(11)(c)(ii) of the Rent Act. This is because Brahmesh could not be said to be carrying on the business of WFAS in his individual capacity. Similarly, the judgment in the case of Vasant Pratap Pandit (supra) had laid down that when the tenant dies, protection should be extended to the members of the family who were participation in the benefit of the tenancy. On that footing, the parties who would be entitled to participate in the benefit, in the present case, cannot be restricted only to Brahmesh, but they would include all the heirs. Hence, the Award could not be challenged by contending that it was in excess of jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, and that he had usurped the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes under Section 28 of the Rent Act or that he had ignored the inheritance and protection available only to Brahmesh under Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 5 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Zahid Ahmedali Mazgaonwalla And Smt. ... vs Smt. Gulshan Pyarali Mazgaonwalla on 11 July, 2006

14:- The words "as may be decided in default of agreement by the Court" as appearing in Section 5(11)(c)(i) are not without significance. These words in our view have been incorporated to meet a situation where there are more than one heirs. In such an eventuality the landlord may or may not agree to one or the other of them being recognised as a 'tenant'. In case of such disagreement the Court has to decide who is to be treated as 'tenant'. Therefore, if 'heir' is to include a legatee of the will then the above-quoted words cannot be applied in case of a tenant who leaves behind more than one legatee for in that case the wishes of the testator can get supplanted, on the landlord's unwillingness to respect the same, by the ultimate decision of the Court. In other words, in case of a testamentary disposition, where the wish or will of the deceased has got to be respected a decision by the Court will not arise and that would necessarily mean that the words quoted above will be rendered nugatory. What we want to emphasise is it is not the heirship but the nature of claim that is determinative. In our considered view the legislature could not have intended to confer such a right on the testamentary heir. Otherwise, the right of the landlord to recover possession will stand excluded even though the original party (the tenant) with whom the landlord had contracted is dead. Besides, a statutory tenancy is personal to the tenant. In certain contingencies as contemplated in Section 5(11)(c)(i) certain heirs are unable to succeed to such a tenancy. To this extent, a departure is made from the general law.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - S Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Prasannan vs Haris on 24 February, 2005

5. The next question to be considered is who is a legal heir and whether a legatee under the Will is a 'heir' so as to claim protection of statutory tenant under the Act, Apex Court in Vasant Pratap Pandit v. Dr. Anant Trimbak Sabnis ((1994) 3 SCC 481) while considering the question under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 held that, considering the context of the object and scheme of the Act, intention of the legislation is not to give right to the legatee of the will. Apex Court held as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 8 - J B Koshy - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar Lalit Kumar Pandya vs Harisingh J. Kapadia (Dec.) Thr. Lrs. ... on 11 December, 2024

30. The rent control legislation does not seek to create inheritable right in respect of the tenanted premises in favour of any tenant. By now, the law is well-established that tenancy rights cannot be inherited. A quick reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Vasant Pratap Pandit v. Anant Trimbak Sabnis in which it is held that bequeath of tenancy rights is impermissible. The objective behind making a provision for transmission of tenancy under Section 5(11)( c) of the Bombay Rent Act or Section 7(15)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (the MRC Act) is to ensure that a member of family of the deceased tenant is not thrown out Page No. 38 of 42 11 December 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2024 01:22:57 ::: Neeta Sawant CRA-333-2023-FC of the tenanted premises only on account of tenant's death. The words "member of tenant's family" is required to be appreciated in the light of objective behind incorporation of provision of Section 5(11)( c) in the Bombay Rent Act. The said provision is not made with the objective of ensuring that tenancy rights are transmitted amongst various relatives or desired persons by the tenant. The provision is aimed at ensuring that a person, who is actually residing with the deceased tenant as a member of his family is not rendered homeless.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

19. Defendant No. 3 has set up a title of tenant in herself on the basis of the Will dated 4th December, 1985 Exh. 'D-5' executed by the deceased M.H. Nariman. She has also contended that she being one of the heirs of M.H. Nariman has inherited his tenancy rights. So far as bequeath of the suit flat in favour of Defendant No. 3 is concerned, Shri Dubey, learned Advocate for the Plaintiffs contended that the tenancy right cannot be bequeathed. In this respect he referred to the provisions of Section 15 of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'Rent Act'), which inter alia provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in any law but subject to any contract to the contrary, it shall not be lawful after coming into operation of the Rent Act for any tenant to assign or transfer or in any other manner his interest therein". Shri Dubey relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Vasant Pratap Pandit v. Dr. Anant Trimbak Sabnis , wherein the principal question for consideration was whether tenancy rights under the Rent Act, can be devised by a Will. Their Lordships held that in their considered view the Legislature could not have intended to confer such a right on the testamentary heir. Otherwise, the right of the landlord to recover possession will stand excluded even though the original party (the tenant) with whom the landlord had contracted is dead. It was further observed that if the word 'heir' is to be interpreted to include a 'legatee' even a stranger may have to be inducted as a tenant for there is no embargo upon a stranger being a legatee. It was therefore, held that the meaning of words assign or 'transfer' as appearing in Section 15, the word 'transfer' has been qualified by the words "in any other manner" and there is no reason why it should be restricted to mean only transfer inter vivos. The Supreme Court held that wide amplitude of the words "in any other manner" clearly envisages that the word 'transfer' has been used therein a generic sense so as to include transfer by testament also.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - J A Patil - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next