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

2005 Supreme(Bom) 897

ANOOP V.MOHTA
Narayan Rajaram AIchetty – Appellant
Versus
Balamma Baburao Shrirekam – Respondent


Judgment

V. MOHTA ANOOP, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-landlord has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seek to challenge the concurrent findings given by the Courts below, by which his petition or suit for eviction was dismissed on all counts, including bona fide need and comparative hardship, as contemplated under the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act ). Therefore, the present petition.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned Counsel, Mrs. Suhasini Mutalik, appearing for the petitioner. None appeared for respondents 1 and 2, though served. The suit premises consists of one room, admeasuring 10' X 10' situated on the first floor in 1219 (old) 1159 (new), Bhawani Peth, Pune. Respondent No. 1 is residing in the suit premises on the monthly rent of Rs. 10/- per month. Respondent no. 1 is staying alone in the suit premises. The petitioner-landlord consists more than 7 members including his one daughter and three sons. They are in possession of only two rooms. In this background, by notice dated 7/8/1987, the tenancy was terminated. On 10/9/1987 Misc. Application. No. 663/1984 was filed by the respondent for fixation of standard rent. On 13







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