Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Thakorlal Mohanlal Tankaria And Anr. vs Saraswatiben W/O. Vadilal Laljibhai on 18 February, 1993
cites
Jayaprakash Shamsundar Mandare vs Laxminarayan Mulidhar Mundade And Ors. on 14 January, 1983
10. Now, if we turn to the plaint again, it is clearly mentioned in para 6 that defendant No. 1 has handed over the running business to defendant No. 2 and the portion which was with defendant No. 1, as a tenant, has also been assigned by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 exclusively. In para 7 of the plaint, it has been further stated that this act is wholly unauthorised on the part of defendant No. 1. When this activity, which is not in dispute at all so far as the defendants are concerned, is viewed in light of the said Notification under Section 15 of the Rent Act and evaluated in view of the recitals in Exh. 49, the dissolution of the year 1972, clearly it would fall under the exception. Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar has cited AIR 1983 Bombay 364 (Jayprakash Section Mandare v. Laxminarayan M. Mundade) where it has been clearly laid down and I fully agree with at that the burden of proof would be on the person who pleads exception. However, in the matter before the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court, the position was not as clear as is to be found in the instant case more particularly in the plaint and dissolution deed Exh. 49. There is therefore, no question of any burden of proof left to be discharged on either side.
Thakker Keshavlal Mohanlal vs Parekh Amrutlal Harilal And Ors. on 19 February, 1973
Same is the position with regard to 1973 RCJ 247 Thankker Keshavlal Mohanlal v. Parekh Amratlal Hernial where even the dissolution deed was not produced and in absence of any material whatsoever, sort of last ditch effort was made before the Supreme Court on behalf of the tenant to bring the case within the exception by virtue of the Notification under Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act. Very rightly, the attempt failed. As against that, in the instant case, the reading of plaint and Exh. 49 dissolution deed of 1972 would make clear that the material is very much on record and therefore, the property thereof would go to the tenant.
1