Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)Section 5 in Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Article 166 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Shri Parshottamdas Ratanlal vs State Of Bombay (Now Gujarat) And Anr. on 22 July, 1960
In the conclusion to which we are inclined to come we are supported by a decision of this Court in Parshottamdas v. State where these very rules came in for construction and a contention similar to the one urged by Mr. Thakore was raised on behalf of the landlord. The contention was that exemption under these rules attaches to every building owned by a cooperative housing society and also to buildings owned by members of any such society under the bye-laws of the society. Negativing this contention the learned Chief Justice observed that if Section 19(2) and the rules made thereunder along with the relevant part of the schedule were read together the question must arise as to what was the coverage of the exemption. He observed that reading the entry in the manner indicated above it was clear that the exemption did not attach to any building the whole or part of which was let out at the time of the coming into operation of the entry. He further observed that Clause (1) of the schedule brought out in express language that the exemption was not intended by the legislature to attach to any properties of which the whole or any part was let out or of which possession had been parted with by the member. He also observed that it was clear from the rules that the object of granting exemption to buildings owned by a co-operative housing society or the members of the society was to give protection to the society itself or to the members of the society who being owners of the building wanted personally to occupy and use the entire building and who had not and did not intend to let out the same or part of the same. That being the extent and the coverage of these rules it is not possible to uphold Mr. Thakores contention that the premises in question were entitled to the exemption or that for that reason thcse premises could not be requisioned under the provisions of Section 6(4) of the Act.
1