SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 203

S.C.AGRAWAL, G.T.NANAVATI
Bajonji Dinshaji Engineer – Appellant
Versus
Amy Dhunjisha Gandhi – Respondent


ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. This appeal arises out of an application submitted by the appellants under Section 1 3-A (2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act. Section 13-A was inserted in the Bombay Rent Control Act by the Maharashtra Act No. 18 of 1987. The case of the appellants is that Respondents I and 2 are licensees in respect of a flat measuring 610 sq. feet in a building that has been constructed by the appellants. It is claimed that the said licence has been terminated by notice and proceedings (LE Suit No. 7 of 1988) have been initiated before the competent authority, Konkan Division, Bombay, for recovery of possession of the flat from the respondents. Before the competent authority, the respondents raised a preliminary objection a regarding jurisdiction of the competent authority to entertain the application on the ground that the provisions of Section 1 3-A (2) are applicable only to licences granted after the coming into force of the said provision and since the licence of the respondents was granted earlier, the said provision could not be applied. The said objection was rejected by the competent authority by order dated 6-7-


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top