Bombay High Court
Nirmala w/o Avinash Kumar Mukherjee and others
Versus
Parpati R.Kulkarni and others
Decided On:

Headnote:BENAMITRANSACTION (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988

       Sections 2(a), 2 (c), 4, and 4 (3)-Flat taken on leave and licence basis from landlady by the company in 1970 and it was occupied by an employee as such and not as an individual-The employee cannot claim to be a tenant from 1973.

       In view of the fact that the petitioners have contended that the licence created in favour of respondent No.2, the company, was in fact for the benefit of original plaintiff and respondent No.2 was only the nominal party, to protect the licence fee, the case of the present petitioners definitely comes within the purview of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1888. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get protection which he has claimed in the suit. The fact that the Benami Transactions (prohibition) Act, 1988, though, came in force in the year 1988, has retrospective effect and is an admitted position in view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari, 1989 Mah LJ 210.

       For Citation : 1996(1) All MR 348 (Bom)