Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.32 seconds)Section 11 in The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Babulal Fakirchand Agrawal vs Suresh Kedarnath Malpani And Ors on 12 June, 2017
In a case Babulal Vs. Suresh and others
reported in 2017 Mh.L.J. 406 relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondents, following issues were
referred for consideration of the Full Bench.
aaa/-
Firm Of Harbanslal Jagmohandas & Anr vs Prabhudas Shivlal on 16 April, 1971
...We think that the problem of interpretation and
application of Section 12(3)(b) need not trouble us
after the decision of this Court in Shah Dhansukhlal
Chagganlal's case followed by the more recent
decision in Harbanslal Jagmohandas v. Prabhudas
Shivlal, which completely cover the case before us.
It is clear to us that the Act interferes with the
landlord's right to property and freedom of contract
only for the limited purpose of protecting tenants
from misuse of the landlord's power to evict them, in
these days of scarcity of accommodation, by asserting
his superior rights in property or trying to exploit his
position by extracting too high rents from helpless
tenants. The object was not to deprive the landlord
altogether of his rights in property which have also to
be respected Another object was to make possible
eviction of tenants who fail to carry out their
obligation to pay rent to the landlord despite
opportunities given by law in that behalf But where
the conditions of Section 12(3)(a) are not satisfed,
there is a further opportunity given to the tenant to
protect himself against eviction. He can comply with
the conditions set out in Section 12(3)(b) and defeat
the landlord's claim for eviction. If, however, he does
not, fulfll those conditions, he cannot claim the
protection of Section 12(3)(b) and in that event, there
being no other protection available to him, a decree
for eviction would have to go against him. It is
diffcult to see how by any Judicial valour discretion
exercisable in favour of the tenant can be found in
Section 12(3)(b), even where the conditions laid down
by it are satisfed, to be strictly confned within the
aaa/-
Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Mranalini B. Shah And Anr. vs Bapalal Mohanlal Shah on 1 May, 1978
In a case Mranalini B. Shah and another Vs.
Bapalal Mohanlal Shah (supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel for respondents in paragraph no.11 and
12 has made following observations :-
Mahalinga Bandappa vs Venkatesh Waman on 9 October, 1956
In a case Mahalinga Bandappa Vs.
Venkatesh Waman (supra) relied upon by the learned
counsel for applicant, in the facts of the said case, no
aaa/-
Sitaram Maruti Nagpure vs Fakirchand Purushottam Dhase on 24 October, 2007
In a case of Sitaram Maruti Nagpure Vs.
Fakirchand Dhase (supra) relied upon by the learned
counsel for the applicant, the Division Bench of this
Court in the facts and circumstances of the said case
observed conduct of the landlord and further held that
he is not entitled to seek ejectment on the ground of
default when he himself refuses to accept the rent by
money order. In the instant case, however, as observed
by the Courts below, those money orders were not in
respect of the period covered by the legal notice issued
by respondents /plaintiffs. Furthermore, though,
applicant/defendant has raised dispute about the
standard rent, failed to fle any application under
section 11 of the Act of 1947 before the Court. I do not
think that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case can
be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the present case.
Bhaskar Bhagwant Shinde vs Sou. Vasudha Madhukar Kadam And Anr. on 6 May, 2005
Vasudha Madhukar Kadam, (supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel for respondents, this Court in
paragraph nos.23, 33 and 34 has made following
observations :-