Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 54 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Gajanan Dattatraya vs Sherbanu Hosang Patel & Ors on 29 August, 1975

M/S Mukul Consultants & Estate Agencies ... vs Pijush Kanti Paul on 27 February, 2012

11. The tenant is aggrieved with the view taken by the Rent Controller. The contentions raised before the Rent Controller have been reiterated and it has been argued that the law laid down in Gajanan Dattatraya Vs. Sherbanu Hosang Patel & Ors. (supra) would have no application to the case in hand, in as much as the said case was in the context of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the relevant clause contained in Section 13(1)(e), whereof had a different phraseology as compared to Section 14 (1) (d) of the DRC Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms.Vasumathi H.Shah vs Mr.Pushpa Raju on 12 April, 2019

In Gajanan Dattatraya Vs. Sherbanu Hosang Patel and others reported in 1975 (2) Supreme Court Cases 668, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that “On the date of the subletting in 1944, this Court found in Goppulal's case (supra) that thee was no rent control legislation in force. This Court did not consider the question as to whether subletting to be within the mischief of the relevant statue was to subsist at the date of the suit. This Court held that Section 13(1)
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - N S Kumar - Full Document

Anil Kumar Jain & Ors vs Raj Kumar & Ors on 6 November, 2024

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1-5 submits that there is no cogent documentary and oral evidence available on record to prove that father of defendants had sub-let the shop in question and the plaintiff is in need of it for starting business by his elder son and brother and courts below without due appreciation of the material available on record, have decreed the suit for eviction. He further submits that the judgment and decree passed by courts below on the ground of sub-letting being contrary to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan Dattatraya vs. Sherbanu Hosang Patel and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 2156 being illegal is not sustainable. He further submits that the suit for eviction cannot be decreed on the ground of bonafide requirement of brother. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the second appeal.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - D D Bansal - Full Document

O.L. Of Aryodaya Spg. And Weaving Mills ... vs Charansingh Dhupsingh on 16 April, 2004

In the case of Gajanan Dattatraya Vs. Sherbanu Hosang Patel & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2156 it is held "..... The provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 indicate that a tenant is disentitled to any protection under the Act if he is within the mischief of the provisions of Section 13(1)(e), namely, that he has sublet. The language is that if the tenant has sublet, the protection ceases .....". In the present case, admittedly, respondent Nos.1/A to 1/F have sub-let the property to the 61 persons and in the circumstances, they are liable to be evicted.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Heirs Of Jayantilal Kanjibhai vs Rameshchandra Uttamram on 11 August, 2000

Mr. Rohtagi drew our attention to certain observations of this court in Gajanan Dattatray v. Sherbanu Hosang Patel (1976)1 SCR 535 : (AIR 1975 SC 2156), where this court held that the tenant's liability to eviction arises when the fact of unlawful sub-letting is proved. The fact that subsequently the other tenant had left the premises does not cure the mischief done. Mr. Rohtagi placing this decision tried to urge before us that the allotment itself of a residence or acquisition of a residence by the tenant or the wife of the tenant was sufficient to attract Cl.(h) of sec. 14(1) of the Act. The fact that subsequently the tenant had left the premises was irrelevant and did not affect the position. It was further submitted that the tenant had acquired a premises or was allotted a residence which could be considered to be so in terms of clause (h) of sec. 14(1) but the flat in question allotted to the wife of the tenant could not by any stretch of imagination be considered to be a matrimonial home. In England the right of the spouses be if the husband or the wife to the matrimonial home are now governed by the provisions of Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967. Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 22 page 650 deals with the rights of occupation in matrimonial home and Para 1047 deals with and provides that where one spouse is entitled to occupy a dwelling house by virtue of any estate or interest or contract or by virtue of any enactment giving him or her the right to remain in occupation, and the other spouse is not so entitled, then the spouse not so entitled has the certain rights (known as "rights of occupation") that is to say in occupation, a right not to be evicted or excluded from the dwelling house or any part of it by the other spouse except with the leave of the Court given by an order, if not in occupation, a right with the leave of the court so given to enter into and occupy the dwelling house. But, such rights are not granted in India though it may be that with change of situation and complex problems arising it is high time to give the wife or the spouse a right of occupation in a truly matrimonial home, in case of marriage breaking-up or in case of strained relationship between the husband and the wife. We, however, cannot for the purpose of this case get much assistance from the principle adumbrated in para-1047 of Halsbury's Laws of England. In England cases before 1968 established that occupation of the matrimonial home by a tenant's wife after the tenant had left counts as occupation by the tenant so as to preseve the statutory tenancy for as long as the marriage itself subsists. In those circumstances in England the landlord could not properly be granted an order for possession against the husband unless there were available grounds for possession against both husband and wife. The tenant cannot abandon his rights while his wife remains, nor can the landlord evict the wife even if the tenant consents or purports to surrender his statutory tenancy. This is the result of case law in England and much social awareness and the case laws have been given statutory expression in the Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967. We have no such law. The premises in question which the wife occuplied was indisputably not the matrimonial home. It is nobody's case. The husband would not, therefore, has any statutory or legal right against the Government to use and enjoy the allotted premises to the wife of the tenant because of her job. Look at from any point of view, the tenant cannot be made to lose his tenancy because of wife acquiring possession of a flat or allotment of a flat because of her official duties over which husband has no right or domain or occupation."
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 10 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Navalmal S/O Pinjamal vs Laxmansingh S/O Panchamsingh And Anr. on 7 March, 1991

Inasmuch as, the lower appellate Court has adopted an approach not permitted by law and has failed to take into consideration the pleadings and evidence of the parties in the light of the correct legal position and has also proceeded upon an incorrect exposition of the law, inconsistent with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gajanan Dattatraya's case supra, the findings of the lower appellate Court are perverse, not binding in second appeal and are liable to be set aside.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next