Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Vinod Mahabiprasad Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sandeep V. Marne, J.)
A. THE CHALLENGE
1) These Revision Applications are filed challenging the judgment and order dated 12 January 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing (A-1) Appeal Nos.396/2015 and 95/2016 and confirming the eviction decree dated 25 June 2015 passed by the Small Causes Court in R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996. By decreeing the suit, the Small Causes Court has directed the Revision Applicants (Defendant Nos.1 to 8) to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff.
B. FACTS
2) Plaintiff claims to be the owner of Godown No. 63 in Sitaram Mill, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 001 are the suit premises. By Agreement dated 2 July 1975 entered into between the Plaintiff- Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd and Defendant No.1-MBK Enterprises, Plaintiff granted lease in respect of portion of the Godown No. 63 admeasuring 8800 sq. ft (suit premises) in favour of Defendant No.1 for a period of 60 years at monthly rent of Rs.4,488/-. Plaintiff found Defendant No.2-Mid-Day Publications Pvt. Ltd. in occupation of the suit premises and accordingly filed R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996 on 9 February 1996 seeking recovery of possession of the sui
Important Point : The court upheld the eviction decree based on unlawful subletting and unauthorized structural alterations, interpreting lease provisions to restrict successive subletting without la....
A landlord cannot seek eviction on arrears of rent if the statutory notice has not followed the deadline provision while unauthorized constructions can justify eviction if they are proven to cause de....
Alterations made without permission by a tenant constitute grounds for eviction under sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, invalidating contrary findings of the appellate court.
The judgment establishes that the erection of permanent structures by a tenant without the landlord's consent, in violation of Section 16(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, can lead to ....
The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory provisions in eviction cases, particularly regarding rent payment and tenant obligations under the Bombay Rent Act.
Permanent alterations made by a tenant without landlord consent constitute grounds for eviction under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Revisional jurisdiction permits interference with perverse appellate findings ignoring tenant's admissions of unauthorized substantial alterations, spouse's suitable residence acquisition, and subjec....
The High Court holds that a landlord's need for property repairs overrides the tenant's claims, reaffirming limited revisional jurisdiction.
Unauthorized alterations became permanent constructions without landlord consent, justifying eviction under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
The tenant's acquisition of alternative accommodation under Section 13(1)(l) of the Rent Act justified eviction, with the principle of greater hardship being irrelevant in this context.
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
