Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.42 seconds)
Bai Ganga Wd/O. Khoda Chhagan And Ors. vs Bai Kamla Daughter Of Mangaldas ... on 24 January, 1973 cites

Patel Chunibhai Dajibhai Etc vs Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar ... on 3 December, 1964

21. Mr. Shah has cited before us the decision of the Supreme Court in Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao . On the strength of this decision he has argued that the Tenancy Act contemplates only one postponed date and no more and that such a postponed date has relation to disability of the landlord as on 1st April 1957. That was not a case of a disabled landlord and the rights which accrued to him under Section 32 F (1) read with Section 31(3). In that case the landlord who was not a disabled landlord gave within time notice to his tenant terminating his tenancy and on March 24, 1957 made an application under Section 29 read with Section 31 for evicting his tenant. On July 10, 1957 he made another application against his tenant under Section 29 read with Section 14 for the same relief. The Supreme Court held that the second application for possession, made after 1st April 1957, was not maintainable and ought to have been rejected even though the first application made prior to 1st April 1957 had been pending because Section 32 barred all such applications after 1st April 1957. It is in that context that the Supreme Court observed that there was only one postponed date contemplated by the Tenancy Act. The facts of the case render the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case inapplicable to the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 194 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Madhaji Lakhiram vs Mashrubhai Mahadevbhai Rabari And Ors. on 7 December, 1961

In Madhaji Lakhiram v. Mashrubhai Mahadevbhai Rabari and Ors. 3 Gujarat Law Reporter 438, a Full Bench of this Court was considering a case under Section 88-C. The first principle which has been laid down in that decision is that Sub-section (1) of Section 88-C exempts lands to which it applies from the provisions of Section 32 and the landlord is brought into picture only in sad far as it is necessary to fix the land which earns the exemption. It has been laid down that the ownership of the demised land vests on the tillers' day in a tenant who fulfills the conditions mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 32. Therefore a landlord who wants to claim exemption under Section 88-C in respect of his land must satisfy those conditions as on the tiller's day. Since the scheme of Section 88-C is different from the scheme of Section 32-F read with Section 31, the principle laid down therein cannot be applied to the instant case. Therefore merely because Section 88-C is applicable to that class of landlords who satisfied on the tillers' day the conditions laid down therein, we cannot hold that Section 32F read with Section 31 applies to disabled landlords as on tillers' day only. This decision therefore does not help Mr. Shah in making good his contention.
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Chanchalben Wd/O. Dahyabhai Desaibhai vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 22 July, 1970

30. Chanchalben widow of Dahyabhai Desaibhai v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal 12 Gujarat Law Reporter, 428, has also been referred to. This decision has been over-ruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1098 of 1966 decided on 8-2-197 L to which we have referred earlier. Therefore no detailed consideration of this decision is necessary for the purpose of this case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1