Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.34 seconds)
Khiyashi Kachara Gosar & Another vs The Bombay Electric Supply & Transport ... on 24 November, 1998 cites

Ajit And Ors. vs General Manager, Best Undertaking Of ... on 11 October, 1984

I am in agreement with the view expressed by Jamdar, J., in Ajit's case (supra). Legal possession does not of itself constitutes an occupation. Relations, dependents, or servants residing in the house with the permission of the person who has a right to occupy the house cannot be said to be in occupation of the house. Occupation is of a person with whose permission and on whose account they are residing in the house. There is thus no substance in the first two contentions of Shri Patel.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Amba Prasad vs Abdul Noor Khan And Ors on 17 April, 1964

21. The second decision of the Apex Court to which a reference has been made by Jamdar, J., in Ajit's case (supra) is of Amba Prasad v. Abdul Noor Khan and Ors., which is also under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 where it was held that the word "occupant" signifies occupancy and enjoyment. Mediate possession (except where the immediate possessor holds on behalf of the mediate possessor) is of no consequence. It was also held that "occupation" to be basis of a right must be of a person who claims to be in possession in his own right. While I am bound by the observations of the Apex Court in the two decisions mentioned above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 15 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1   2 Next