Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.29 seconds)
The Sahyadri Central Consumer Co-Op. ... vs The Controller Of Accommodation ... on 3 May, 2019
cites
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Maharashtra Land Requisition Act, 1948
Section 5 in The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
H. D. Vora vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 February, 1984
54. It is also surprising as to how the State authorities could
shut their eyes to the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Grahak
Sanstha Manch by virtue of which the petitioners were directed to
vacate the premises before 30 November 1994 and impliedly aided the
petitioner to continue in occupation of the premises in the teeth of the
direction is of the Supreme Court. Such an approach on the part of the
concerned officers of the State Government at the helm of affairs is
certainly and distressingly painful. In fact there was no requirement
for the Controller of Accommodation to issue a fresh show cause notice
when the Supreme Court itself dismissed the writ petition of the
petitioner and the obvious consequence of which was that the
petitioners were bound to vacate and ought to have vacated the
premises before 30 November 1994. Thus for last about 25 years the
petitioner has continued to occupy the premises illegally on account of
the disregardful and/or derelict attitude and approach of the
concerned officials. Despite the solemn decision of the Supreme Court
65 of 66
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2020 14:47:41 :::
W. P. 73-15-Final.doc
in H.D.Vora's case (supra) and Grahak Sanstha Manch (supra) the
landlord was deprived of his valuable rights guaranteed under Article
300A of the Constitution. Certainly there is gross injustice caused to
the landlord, which the Supreme Court 25 years back had remedied.
Maheshchandra Trikamji Gajjar vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 March, 2000
In accordance with law
stated by the Supreme Court in the cases of Kunal
R.Chaudhari's (supra) and Maheshchandra
Trikamji Gajjar (supra), the petitioner cannot be
said to be a Government allottee within the
meaning of Section 5(1-A) of the Rent Act. The
59 of 66
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2020 14:47:41 :::
W. P. 73-15-Final.doc
petitioner is, thus, not entitled to the protection of
the deeming fiction within the meaning of Section
15-B of the Rent Act.
Section 27 in The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Ashok Chandrakant Palande vs State Of Maharashtra . on 11 November, 2014
In Ashok Chandrakant Palande Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors.8 a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with
a case where there was already an eviction order passed by the
Competent Authority, the Division Bench referring to the decision of
the Supreme Court in "Maheshchandra Trikamji Gajjar Vs. State of
Maharashtrqa & ors"9 in paragraphs 4 and 5 has made the following
observations:-