Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)
Om Joshi Apartments Flat Owners ... vs Dr. Natwarlal D. Joshi And Ors. on 3 September, 1999 cites

Mani Nariman Daruwala Alias Bharucha ... vs Phiroz N. Bhatena And Ors. on 30 April, 1991

28. So far as the enforceability of the decree is concerned, it was contended by Mr. Sakhardande on the basis of the judgment of Justice Agarwal, in Mani Nariman Daruwala since deceased by his heirs Rusi Nariman Daruwala and Ors. v. Phiroz N. Bhatena and Ors. 1991 Mah. L. J 376 : AIR 1991 SC 1494 (Bom.) that if the decree is a nullity the same can be challenged by the obstructionist in execution proceedings or in proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code and to contend that the decree was not liable to be executed and this right was vested with the obstructionist even though he cannot establish his independent right to possession. According to Mr. Sakhardande the decree for eviction obtained by the respondents against the original lessee was a nullity because the decree was passed on the ground that the original lessee was in arrears of rent and was a defaulter whereas according to Mr. Sakhardande the original lessee was not at all a defaulter. The suit was filed by the respondents for recovery of Rs. 53,424/ - being the arrears of rent from 15.12.1968 to 14.4.1970 at the rate of Rs. 3,339/- per month and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 3,339/- from 14.4.1970 till the possession is delivered. According to Mr. Sakhardande lease agreement was executed on 15.9.1967 between the respondent and the original lessee and it provided that the lessee shall not be liable to pay rent or compensation for a period of fifteen months from the date of the lease (this is as per clause IV on page 13). This period of fifteen months gets completed on 15.12.1968 and it is from 15.12.1968 that the rent becomes payable as per the lease deed Clause IV. Lessee deposited Rs. 10,017/-equivalent to three months rent with the respondents and as per the receipt signed at the end of the lease agreements, the respondents received Rs. 40,068/- by way of deposit therefore when the suit was filed for arrears of rent of Rs. 53,424/-, the respondents had with him a sum of Rs. 50,085/ - meaning thereby that rent for fifteen months stood paid from out of the aforesaid amount of deposit and as such the original lessee was not in arrears and a decree is a nullity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 63 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Jamnadas Dharamdas vs Dr. J. Joseph Ferreira And Anr on 7 May, 1980

In Jamnadas Dharmadas case AIR 1980 SC 1605 as stated above, the question was slightly different, i.e. jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes Court regarding grant of certain reliefs. In that case plaintiff had given on lease two plots of land for a period of fifteen years on yearly rent of Rs. 10,200/- and the lessee - original defendant was given liberty to erect building and structure on the two plots of land on the expiration of the term of fifteen years. The defendant - lessee had agreed to deliver back the possession of two plots of land free of all buildings, erections and structures and levelled and put in good order and condition to the satisfaction of the plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 10 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Virji Nathuram And Ors. vs Krishnakumar on 5 October, 1984

In Virji Nathuram's case AIR 1985 Bom. 429 decided by Justice Jahagirdar the original lease has permitted the erection of a superstructure on the land and the induction of third parties in the said superstructure. The persons so inducted "who were the petitioners" before the High Court were the tenants of the superstructure which was erected. The status of the persons who were inducted, though legally, in the superstructure vis-a-vis the land was "according to High Court" necessarily that of licensees and not any other higher status and in this background Justice Jahagirdar held that :
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1