SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1964 Supreme(Guj) 44

J.B.MEHTA, P.N.BHAGWATI
KHURESHI IBRAHIM AHMEDA – Appellant
Versus
AHMED HAJI KHANMAHOMAD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: J.P.JOSHI, K.N.MANKAD

P. N. BHAGWATI, J.

( 1 ) THE short question which arises in this Second Appeal is as to what is a permanent structure within the meaning of sec. 13 (1) (b) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 The same expression we find has been used also in section 13 (1) (b) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 and the question as to what is the true connotation of that expression is therefore a question of some importance. In order to appreciate how the question has arisen it is necessary to state briefly the facts giving rise to this Second Appeal.

( 2 ) ONE Gulamhussein Haji Dada was at all material times the owner of a piece of land situate in Jamnagar. There was an Ota i. e. a raised platform like structure on the piece of land as also a Fali in it. The piece of land together with the Ota and Fali will hereafter be referred to by us as the suit premises. Gulamhussein Haji Dada was residing most of the time in Burma and one Nurmahmed was therefore looking-after the suit premises on behalf of Gulamhussein Haji Dada. Sometime in 1952 the suit premises were let out to the defendant at the rent of Rs. 6/per month. Soon after taking the suit premises on rent the de












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top