Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Julia Rodrigues – Appellant
Versus
Chandra Gulab Advani – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. Petitioner -landlady has filed this Petition challenging the decree dated 1 April 2003 passed by the District Judge, Pune, allowing Civil Appeal No.790 of 1985 and setting aside the eviction decree dated 28 September 1994 passed by the Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune, in Civil Suit No.1662 of 1981.
2. Commercial premises situated at House No.324, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Camp, Pune are the suit premises. According to Petitioner/Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 was inducted as monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises for the purpose of carrying out laundry business. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant No.1 closed his laundry business in the year 1976-77 and was in the process of subletting the suit premises. Therefore, she served Notice dated 12 January 1977 upon the Defendant No.1 terminating his tenancy. The notice was replied by Defendant No.1 denying the allegations. Plaintiff thereafter received notice dated 2 May 1981 from Defendant Nos.1 and 2 informing her that ownership right in the laundry with the name of M/s. Snow White Cleaners and Dyers was transferred by Defendant No.1 and his son in favour of Defendant No.2 alongwith stock-in- trade, goodw
The assignment of tenancy rights under the guise of business transfer is unlawful unless it meets specific legal criteria, emphasizing genuine intent to continue the original business.
The assignment of a business must involve genuine continuity of the same business; otherwise, it constitutes unlawful subletting under the Bombay Rent Act.
The burden of proof for unlawful subletting shifts to the tenant once the landlord establishes exclusive possession by a third party.
A tenant's change of user from commercial to residential use constitutes a breach of tenancy terms under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, independent of any proof of damage to the prem....
To claim protection under the Bombay Rent Act, a defendant must prove a subsisting license agreement before the cut-off date of 01/02/1973; mere occupation does not confer tenancy rights.
Occupants must establish lawful subsisting license agreements as of February 1, 1973, to benefit from tenant protections under the Bombay Rent Act; mere possession or oral agreements are insufficient....
A tenant's unauthorized use of premises and subletting without landlord consent constitutes a breach of tenancy, justifying eviction.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
