Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.48 seconds)
Carona Ltd vs M/S Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons on 5 October, 2007 cites

Crompton Greaves Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 20 July, 2001

8. Mr. Parekh, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, on the other hand, supported the decree passed by the Small Causes Court, confirmed by a Bench of that Court as also by the High Court. He submitted that as far as constitutional validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Rent Act is concerned, the point is covered by a decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 Bom 65. The Small Causes Court as well as the High Court were, therefore, wholly justified in proceeding with the matter and in deciding it on merits. He submitted that tenancy was terminated in accordance with law. It was, therefore, obligatory on the tenant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the landlord, but it failed to do so. The landlord was, therefore, constrained to approach a Court of law which passed a decree for possession in favour of the landlord holding that since the paid-up share capital of the Company was more than rupees one crore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to it. The counsel urged that there was no illegality in the said finding and obviously, therefore, the landlord was entitled to possession of suit-premises and the tenant could not resist eviction. An appellate Court confirmed the said decree. Before the High Court it was contended by the tenant that a unanimous resolution was passed by the Company to decrease the share capital to less than rupees one crore (Rs.41 lakhs from Rs.8.20 crores). Such unilateral action at a subsequent stage, submitted the counsel, would not deprive the owner of the property to the 'right accrued' in favour of the landlord. The 'jurisdictional fact' (paid up share capital of more than rupees one crore) was very much in existence at the time when the proceedings were initiated against the Company. But even otherwise, considering the factual situation, the tenant was not entitled to any relief. It was stated that though the so-called resolution was said to have been passed, it had not been approved by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). In the eye of law, therefore, there was no decrease of share capital. The High Court was, hence, wholly right in observing that even on that ground, the tenant was not entitled to any relief. The counsel also submitted that this Court is exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The tenant is not entitled to such equitable relief. It was submitted that the tenant has not paid rent since several years i.e. from January 1, 1995. According to the counsel, the amount due and payable by the tenant as on August 31, 2007 comes to Rs. 56,22,000/- pursuant to interim order passed by this Court on April 18, 2005, an amount of Rs. 24 lakhs was deposited by the appellant in this Court which was withdrawn by the landlord, but even excluding that amount, the tenant is liable to pay to the landlord an amount of Rs.32,22,000/-. It was further stated that after order dated April 18, 2005 i.e. for more than two years, the tenant has not paid even a pie to the landlord. Such tenant, urged the counsel, does not deserve sympathy and cannot claim equitable relief. On all these grounds, the counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Bombay High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 9 - A P Shah - Full Document

Goppulal vs Thakurji Shriji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji ... on 12 March, 1969

40. The tenant took on lease the premises on January 1, 1960. He, however, sublet a part of the premises in August, 1965. The landlord issued a notice on April 1, 1967 and terminated the tenancy. The tenant denied that there was unlawful sub-letting of a part of the premises. It was further submitted that in any case, the so-called sub-tenant vacated the premises on April 14, 1967 i.e. before the suit was instituted by the landlord and hence, cause of action did not survive. It was contended on behalf of the tenant that Section 13(1)(e) used the expression "has sub-let", i.e. the present perfect tense which contemplated the event connected in some way with the present time. Since the sub-tenant had already vacated and left the premises, at the most it could be said that the tenant 'had sub-let' the premises but it was not a ground for eviction under the Act and hence no decree could have been passed. Reliance was also placed on an earlier decision of this Court in Goppulal v. Thakurji Shriji Shriji Dwarkadheshji, (1969) 3 SCR 989 : (1969) 1 SCC 792.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 13 - R S Bachawat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next