Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.33 seconds)
Nasim Banu Shabbir Ali Nayani And Anr vs Swarna Highrise Constructions And Anr on 4 May, 2023 cites

Domnie Iimon Nazareth vs Swarna Highrise Constructions And Anr on 21 March, 2023

16. It is stated that respondent No.1 can execute an agreement in favour of the petitioner - Estella Fernandes similar to the agreements executed with the existing tenants and such agreement can also be entered with the other tenants, barring three tenants against whom eviction proceedings are pending before the Small Causes Court and their entitlement shall be subject to the outcome of the eviction suit filed by respondent No.1. It is submitted that insofar as the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2097 of 2019 (Domnie Iimon Nazareth vs. Swarna Highrise Constructions & Anr.) is concerned, he is not the original tenant and the original tenant was one Xavier Nazareth. It is stated that Domnie is not the son of the original tenant and the father of the petitioner, one Veris was never the tenant, and no document was produced to show the alleged tenancy of the father of the petitioner namely Iimon Nazareth. Hence, the claim of the said petitioner cannot be considered as he is not a tenant
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - R N Laddha - Full Document

Girish Mulchand Mehta vs Mahesh S. Mehta on 10 December, 2009

28. It is a settled position in law that the interest of the minority occupants/tenants cannot be opposed to the interest of the majority occupants, as also such persons cannot foist on the owners a delay in commencement of the redevelopment work, resulting in the project cost being increased, which would be seriously prejudicial to the owners/developers and above all the majority of the occupants. (See: Girish Mulchand Mehta & Anr. Vs. Mahesh S. Mehta & Anr. 2; the judgment of this Court in Kamla Homes and Lifestyle Pvt.Ltd.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 82 - S Kumar - Full Document

Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010

filed7bec20fc039fd385d505541632424.odt decision in Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra) to support a proposition that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against respondent No.1 although respondent No.1 is a private party, in the facts of the case is not well founded. In our opinion, undertaking redevelopment and re-housing of the tenants by the landlord does not amount to discharge of a public duty by the landlord. Further taking benefit of the incentives if any as available under the rules and regulation as may be available also would not create any enforceable legal right for the tenants to dictate to the landlord course of the redevelopment once the statutory minimum area of the tenement to be provided to the tenant as per the redevelopment scheme is being made available to the tenants/occupants of the building, which came to be demolished.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 2466 - Full Document
1   2 Next