Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata S. Guram on 25 September, 1986
16. Was the High Court justified in taking this view and in upsetting the finding recorded by the Appellate Bench? While considering this question it has to be borne in mind that the High Court was exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the exercise of this jurisdiction the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact of an inferior court or tribunal if there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the court or tribunal who has come or in other words it is a finding which was perverse in law. Except to the limited extent indicated above the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact (See: Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram (supra)} Applying these test were are unable to persuade ourselves to hold that the findings recorded by the Appellate Bench suffer from such an infirmity so as to justify interference with the said finding under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Section 5 in Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Sanwarmal Kejriwal vs Vishwa Cooperative Housing Society ... on 8 March, 1990
The order dated July 14, 1978 has not been challenged by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 who were parties to E.A. No. 88/E of 1972 in which the said order was passed. The law is well-settled that the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a suit or an application depends upon the averments contained in the plaint or the claim application and not on the defence taken by the adversary party. If the averments on the basis of which the court has assumed jurisdiction are not established, the court would dismiss proceedings on ground of failure to prove the jurisdictional fact [See: Sanwarmal Kejriwal v. Vishwa Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. (supra)]. In the present case in the Eviction Application (EA No. 88/E of 1972), the appellants had stated that the statutory tenancy in respect of the premises came to an end with the death of Bhatena and that the defendants (respondents Nos. l to 4) who are the heirs and legal representatives of Bhatena are liable to deliver over vacant possession of the premises and they have no right of their own in the same. Although in the written statement filed on their behalf respondents Nos. 1 to 4 had claimed that they were tenants of the premises but they did not take any steps establish the said claim and the matter was decided ex parte against them on the basis of the averments contained in the eviction application. The order dated July 14, 1978 passed against respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in E.A. No. 88/E of 1972 cannot, therefore, be held to be without jurisdiction. Moreover, in appeal arising out of SLP No. 16512/90, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. l to 4 wherein it is stated that after the death of Bhatena they did not become tenants of the premises and they have accepted the decree of ejectment obtained by the appellants in respect of the premises. The order dated July 14, 1978 must be held to be binding on the said respondents in so far as it relates to the premises other than the part of the premises in respect of which protection of the Bombay Rent Act is available to respondents Nos. 5 and 6. Consequently, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are entitled to succeed to the extent of the part of the premises which is covered by the licence in respect of which they are entitled to protection under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act and the appellants are entitled to succeed in respect of the rest of the premises. The orders of the Courts below discharging the obstruction notice in its entirety cannot, therefore, be upheld and the said obstruction notice taken out by the appellants has to be discharged to the extent of the part of the premises which is covered by the licence and for which the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 can claim protection under Section 15A' of the Bombay Rent Act but the obstruction notice must succeed in respect of the rest of the premises and it is directed that the appellants be put in possession of the premises excluding the portion covered by the licence in favour of respondents Nos. 5 and 6.
Section 15 in Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 15A in The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
O. N. Bhatnagar vs Smt. Rukibai Narsindas & Ors on 21 April, 1982
In this regard, Dr. Chitale has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Raizada Topandas and Anr. v. Mis Gorakhram Gokalchand , O.N. Bhatnagar v. Smt. Rukibai Narsindas and Ors. 1982 (3) SCR 861 and Sanwarmal Kejriwal v. Vishwa Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. . Dr. Chitale has also urged that even if it be assumed that the eviction application was not maintainable under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and order dated July 14,1978 was an order passed by the court without jurisdiction it is not open to respondents Nos. 5 and 6 to challenge the same and that too in proceedings in execution under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC.
Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954
8. Shri R.F. Nariman, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 5 and 6 has, on the other hand, submitted that the licence granted in favour of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 was subsisting on February 1,1973, as found by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes and that respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were entitled to claim protection as deemed tenant under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act and that the High court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Contitution, was in error in setting aside the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Bench. Shri Nariman has also urged that since respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are to be treated as deemed tenant under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act, eviction proceedings under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act were not maintainable and the order dated July 14, 1978 passed in the said proceedings was an order passed by a court without jurisdiction and it was a nullity and it has open to respondents Nos. 5 and 6 to raise an objection about execution of the order dated July 14, 1978 against them in the execution proceedings filed by the appellants. Shri Nariman has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram and Kiran Singh and Ors. v. Chaman Paswan and Ors.