Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (3.37 seconds)
M/S K.B.Saha And Sons Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Development Consultant Ltd on 12 May, 2008 cites

Smt. Juthika Muliek And Another vs Dr. Mahendra Yashwant Bal And Others on 28 October, 1995

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the judgment of the High Court as well as of the trial court, we do not find any ground for 21 which interference can be made with the judgment of the High Court. We may note that it was the case of the respondent before the High Court that it was protected by the provisions of the Act and that it could not be evicted only because as per the agreement, the tenancy was to be occupied by one of its officers. The appellant, on the other hand, as noted hereinabove, placed reliance on the decision of this court in Smt. Juthika Mullick's case [supra], to put forth the point that the respondent was bound to vacate the premises after the said officer had left the premises and relying on Smt.Juthika Mulick's case [supra] submitted that the lease agreement was not at all contrary to the provisions of the Act and that the parties were at liberty to contract out of the Section delineating the various grounds for eviction. We may note at this stage that in that decision, this court had held that although the tenant was protected 22 under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act and such tenant could be evicted only for one or more grounds as provided in that Act, the parties had the freedom to enter into an agreement to take their case out of the provisions of that Section i.e. the parties were at liberty to contract out of that section. Before we deal with the submission of Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, on this question, we may look into the findings arrived at by the High Court on this question.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document
1   2 Next