Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Eknath Bhanudas Utane vs Shankarrao Deorao Jumde And Anr. on 5 September, 1969

Ramcharan Ramdin Ahir vs Resident Deputy Collector With Rent ... on 8 August, 1970

3. The finding that a portion of the house, namely one room is in occupation of the respondent No. 3 would non-suit the respondent No. 3 in view of the recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Eknath v. Shankarrao. Special Civil Appln. No. 229 of 1966, D/- 5-9-1969 () (FB). On the interpretation of Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order, the Full Bench has taken a view that if the landlord is in occupation of another house of his own in the city or town, concerned, or is in occupation of a part of the house, in respect of the other part of which permission is sought by the landlord, the landlord cannot maintain an application for permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order even if the portion of the house in the occupation of the landlord may be insufficient or inadequate for his need. The constitution of the Full Bench was necessitated on account of a conflict of decisions of this Court on this question.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Vikram Madhoba Ghodkhande vs The Medical Officer on 14 February, 1983

This conflict of decision led to the constitution of a Full Bench which in Eknath Bhanudas v. Shankarrao (1971) Mh. LJ. 546, agreeing with the later view held that the landlord in occupation of a house or a portion of a house of his own in the town or city concerned has no right at all to apply for permission to evict his tenant on the ground of his bona fide need irrespective of its extent or purpose. The ultimate consequence of this decision was that, that class of landlords who had even a portion of the house in their occupation could not maintain an application under this clause, howsoever genuine the need may be. Very close to the pronouncement of this judgment, followed a challenge to this proviso as interpreted by the Full Bench, based on Article 19(1)(f) and 14 of the Constitution.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sheshrao Raghoba Suryawanshi And Ors. vs Sonchand Sobhagmalji Darda on 8 September, 1981

3. Shri Bapat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these three petitions submitted that in Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Eknath Bhanudas Utane v. Shankarrao Deorao Jumde and another, 1971 Mh.L.J. 546, it was held that house in Clause 2(3) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 includes a building or a part of a building and when the landlord was occupying a part of a building it had to be held that he was occupying house of his own. It was submitted that upon this interpretation that was placed upon Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 by a Full Bench of this Court, it will have to be found in the present case that the landlord who was admittedly occupying the residential portion of the house in question and a baithak, was occupying any other house of his own in the city or town concerned and, therefore, in terms of sub-clause (vi) of Clause 13(3) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 which reads as under :
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1