Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)
Mumbai Building Repairs And ... vs Renu Mohta And 3 Ors on 6 November, 2019 cites

Bharat Kanakia And Anr. vs Mumbai Building Repairs And ... on 16 September, 2005

51. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bharat Kanakia & Anr. (supra) has held that under Section 66 (1)(a) of the MHAD Act, the competent authority is empowered to evict a person authorised to occupy any authority premises. It is held that the said provision, however, would not applicable to the building which was the subject matter of the said case as it was not the authority premises. In my view, Section 66 of the MHAD Act can be invoked by the competent authority only if the premises for which such powers are required to be exercised is authority premises within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the MHAD Act. In this case, there was a serious dispute raised by the respondents as to whether there were any surplus tenaments in the hands of the society after accommodating all the existing occupants/tenants in the old building in the newly constructed building. In my view, till such time, the petitioner was able to prove that there were any surplus tenaments after accommodating all existing tenants ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:50:15 ::: ppn 40 wp-746.19 (j).doc who were occupying the old building were accommodated in the new building which surplus tenaments vested in the petitioner and available for allotment to a dishoused person and were 'authority premises,' no action under Section 103-J read with Section 66 of the MHAD Act could be initiated by the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 10 - F I Rebello - Full Document

Radhakrishna Co-Operative Housing ... vs State Of Maharashtra . on 3 January, 2017

52. The judgment of this Court in the case of Radhkishna Co- operative Housing Society Limited (supra) and in the case of Bharat Kanakia & Anr. (supra) would assist the case of the respondent no.2. In my view, if the petitioner would have been able to successfully prove that there were any surplus tenaments calculated in accordance with Section 103-I(3) of the MHAD Act, the question of there being any surplus for allotment to a dishoused person would have been arisen only in that circumstances. The powers of the petitioner to initiate action under Section 103-J read with Section 66 of the MHAD Act would arise only if the premises were the authority premises within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the MHAD Act and not otherwise.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1