Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.44 seconds)Section 12 in The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Parvinder Singh vs Renu Gautam & Ors on 22 April, 2004
In the case of Parvinder Singh Vs Renu Gautam & Ors1 a Three
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court enunciated that to defeat the
provisions of law, a device is at times adopted by unscrupulous tenants
and sub-tenants of bringing into existence a deed of partnership which
gives the relationship of tenant and sub-tenant an outward appearance
of partnership while in effect what has come into existence is a sub-
tenancy or parting with possession camouflaged under the cloak of
partnership.
Tyagaraja Mudaliyar vs Vedathanni on 6 December, 1935
9. ... ... ... An enquiry into reality of transaction is
not excluded merely by availability of writing reciting
the transaction. Tyagaraja Mudaliyar Vs Vedathanni
(AIR 1936 PC 70) is an authority for the proposition
that oral evidence in departure from the terms of a
written deed is admissible to show that what is
mentioned in the deed was not the real transaction
between the parties but it was something different. A
lease of immovable property is transfer of a right to
enjoy such property. Parting with possession or control
over the tenancy premises by tenant in favour of a
third person would amount to the tenant having
'transferred his rights under the lease' within the
meaning of Section 14(2) (ii) (a) of the Act."
Gaya Prasad vs Shri Pradeep Srivastava on 7 February, 2001
31. A useful reference in this context can be made to a decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Gaya Prasad Vs Pradeep Srivastava,3
wherein it was enunciated that, the crucial date for deciding as to the
the bona fide of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his
application for eviction. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility
for him to reach the said crucial date of consideration. If every
subsequent development during the post-petition period is to be taken
into account for judging the bona fide of the requirement pleaded by
landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate
situation in our litigative slow-process system subsists. The subsequent
events to overshadow the genuineness of the need must be of such
nature and of such a dimension that the need propounded by the
petitioning party should have been completely eclipsed by such
subsequent events.
D. Sasi Kumar vs Soundararajan on 23 September, 2019
32. Following the abovesaid pronouncement, in the case of D. Sasi
Kumar Vs Soundararajan,4 the Supreme Court reiterated that, if as on
the date of filing the Petition the requirement subsists and it is proved,
3 (2001) 2 SCC 604.
Shri Nilkanth Narhar Sakhawalkar vs Shri Suresh Lahoti on 9 January, 2009
18. A useful reference in this context can be made to a decision of the
learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Narhar D Sakhawalkar
(Since Deceased through his L.Rs.) Sphurti Nilkanth Sakhawalkar Vs
Suresh Lahoti & Ors,2 wherein it was inter alia observed that the fact
that the stranger partners were holding 80% profits out of the
partnership business would itself show that, the interest was transferred
and subtenancy was created.
1