Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.28 seconds)
The Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of ... vs New India Assurance Company Limited on 3 May, 2018
cites
Suhas H Pophale vs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd.& Anr on 11 February, 2014
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent has supported
the order of the Appellate Court by submitting that, the Petitioner is
making this artificial distinction in the premises owned by the local
authority and the premises owned by the private parties. It is urged
that, the protection granted by the Apex Court in the case of Suhas H.
Pophale Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) is applicable to all the
tenants, who were in possession of the premises since prior to coming
into effect of the Public Premises Act. As, admittedly, the Respondent
is in possession since prior to 1st September 1971, on which date the
Public Premises Act came into effect, the Appellate Court has rightly
protected Respondent's possession. Hence, no interference is
warranted in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court.
The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Punjab National Bank And Ors. Etc. Etc on 7 August, 1990
12. As can be seen from paragraph No.8 of the said Judgment, the
principal contention raised by the Appellant in the said case, right
from the stage of proceeding before the Estate Officer and even before
this Court, was that, his occupation in the premises concerned was
protected under the newly added Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent
Act with effect from 1st February 1973, i.e. prior to the first
Respondent acquiring title over the property from 1st January 1974.
Therefore, he could not be evicted by invoking the provisions of the
Public Premises Act and by treating him as an 'unauthorized
occupant' under that Act. The said contention was rejected by this
Court holding that, the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were not
applicable to the premises concerned, as the premises were covered
under the Public Premises Act. While arriving at this conclusion, this
Court had relied upon the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the
WP-5678-15.doc 8 Of 29
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2018 01:20:26 :::
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashoka Mktg Ltd. Vs. Punjab
National Bank, (1990) 4 SCC 406. In this judgment, the contention
that the provisions of the Public Premises Act cannot be applied to the
premises, which fall within the ambit of the State Rent Control Act,
was rejected. It was, therefore, held by this Court that, the Public
Premises Act became applicable to the premises concerned from 13 th
May 1971 itself i.e. after the date from when the management of the
erstwhile Insurance Company was taken over by the Central
Government and not from the date of merger i.e. from 1 st January
1974.