Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)
Vishwanath Govind Lagu vs Smt. Usha Laxman Barve on 11 August, 2005 cites

Ganpat Ram Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Gayatri Devi on 17 July, 1987

9. The facet of delay in filing the present suit by the landlady, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is also relevant. There is an ample material on the record, even in the evidence of the parties, that the respondent-landlady had full knowledge about the acquisition of additional accommodation/premises by the tenant. That was in the year 1974. There was no objection of any kind raised by the respondent at any point of time, except far the notice dated 19th January, 1987. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, also raised an issue that such suit filed by the landlord after more than 12 years, is beyond limitation. Ganpat Ram Sharma and Ors. v. Smt. Gayatri Devi has been relied on for the said purpose. The provisions of the Limitation Act, basically Articles 66 & 67 read with Article 119 had been resorted to. The Appellate Court, however, rejected the said issue and plea of the tenant. There was no such plea raised before the Trial Court. In the present case, without going into that controversy, at this stage, the following observation of the Apex Court is relevant - "The other aspect, apart from the question of limitation, to which we shall briefly refer, is that the landlord must be quick in taking his action after the accrual of the cause of action and if by his inaction the tenant allows the premises to go out of his hands then it is the landlord who is to be blamed and not the tenant." In the light of the aforesaid observation and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am also of the view that in the present case, the delayed action of the landlord-respondent also takes away the supportive rigour of the Bombay Rent Act. There is no such limitation provided under the Act to file such suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 94 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Prabhakar Raghunath Dixit vs B.S. Kothare on 20 March, 1973

6. The first and important burden in the present case, so far as the landlady is concerned, remained undisputed in view of the admitted position that the tenant has acquired two room premises. The second important aspect is for the tenant to prove that the said premises is not suitable for the residence purpose as contemplated under the Act. The counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on Prabhakar Raghunath Dixit v. B.S. Kothare Bom. Law Reporter, Vol.LXXVI, Pg.240 wherein Bombay High Court, after considering the said definition, read with the same provisions observed as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next