IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sandeep V.Marne
Laxman Pralhad Ganaji Dayme since deceased through his Legal Heirs – Appellant
Versus
Vinayak Mahadeo Pradhan – Respondent
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. This petition is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 10 November 1998 passed by the II Extra Joint District Judge, Thane dismissing Civil Appeal No.256/1995 and confirming the eviction decree dated 27 March 1995 passed by the II Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Thane in Regular Civil Suit No. 250/1991. The Trial Court has decreed the suit by directing the Petitioner-Defendant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiffs within one month.
2. Shop No.3 admeasuring 226 sq.ft situated on the ground floor of the building known as Pradhan Building situated at Municipal House No.54, Tikka No.13, No.66 Tembhi Naka, Thane is the suit premises. Plaintiffs claim to be the owners in respect of the suit building in which the suit premises are situated. Defendant was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises for conducting his business of hair cutting saloon in the name and style of ‘Fashionable Hairdresser’ in the suit premises. Plaintiffs agreed to purchase the suit premises by Agreement dated 23 April 1986. Before purchasing the building, Plaintiff No.1, who is a qualified Architect, had co
Pitambardas Kalyanji Bakotiya Versus. Dattatraya Krishnaji
Alisaheb Abdul Latif Mulla Versus. Abdul Karim Abdul Rahman Mulla and others.
Suka Ishram Chaudhari Versus. Jamnabai Ranchodas Gujarathi & Ors.
Unauthorized alterations became permanent constructions without landlord consent, justifying eviction under Section 13(1)(b) of 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.
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.
Eviction under Rent Act requires definitive evidence of permanent structures, including their nature and impact, which was insufficiently established in this case.
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 ....
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....
Tenant's unauthorized construction on adjoining land caused nuisance, justifying eviction under tenant protection laws, while landlord retains rights as adjoining occupier despite not residing nearby....
Material alterations affecting rented property must permanently diminish value from the landlord's perspective to qualify for eviction under relevant law.
Revisional jurisdiction permits interference with perverse appellate findings ignoring tenant's admissions of unauthorized substantial alterations, spouse's suitable residence acquisition, and subjec....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.