Back
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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eviction suit history under bombay rent act grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties dispute alterations, nuisance, suitable residence proof. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. concurrent findings upheld; others deemed perverse. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. unauthorized substantial alterations constitute permanent structure eviction ground. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. spouse's acquisition elsewhere is suitable tenant residence. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. unauthorized elevation causing inconvenience amounts to nuisance. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 7. perverse findings reversed; eviction decreed with vacation time. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
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
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....
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
