IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.M.SATHAYE
Munawar Abdul Kadar Baig – Appellant
Versus
Mumtaz Shahanwaz, (since deceased through Legal Heirs) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SATHAYE, J.
1. By this Civil Revision Application, filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short), the Revision- Applicant/original Plaintiff No.2 is challenging the the Judgment and Decree dated 11.10.2013 passed in A-1 Appeal No.79/2011 alongwith Cross Objection No.2/2012 by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Mumbai (Bandra). By the said impugned Judgment and Decree, the Appeal filed by the Defendants/Tenants challenging the decree of eviction was allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the Landlord challenging adverse findings, was rejected and the Judgment and Decree passed by Small Causes Court, Mumbai in R.A.E Suit No.400/1222 of 1985 (granting eviction) was set aside and the said suit was dismissed with costs.
2. The Revision-Applicant is original Plaintiff-Landlord and Respondents are legal heirs of original Defendants-Tenants.
3. Few facts shorn of unnecessary details are as under :
3.1. The Plaintiff-Landlord filed the said suit seeking eviction of the Defendants-Tenants from the suit flat which is Flat No.5, Second Floor, House No.139-T, Juhu Tara, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 049 which was let out on monthly rent of
Neelakantan And Others Vs. Mallika Begum
S.F. Engineer Vs. Metal Box India Limited and another
Manorama Gopal Langde Vs. Somnath Dagdu Rane
B. R. Mehta Vs. Atma Devi And Others
Dunlop India Limited Vs. A. A. Rahna and another
Revisional jurisdiction permits interference with perverse appellate findings ignoring tenant's admissions of unauthorized substantial alterations, spouse's suitable residence acquisition, and subjec....
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.
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....
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 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.
Permanent alterations made by a tenant without landlord consent constitute grounds for eviction under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
The court affirmed that a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises and a tenant's failure to pay rent are valid grounds for eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
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....
Eviction under Rent Act requires definitive evidence of permanent structures, including their nature and impact, which was insufficiently established in this case.
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....
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.