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

1969 Supreme(Guj) 97

J.B.MEHTA
NANIBEN NARSINH VANMALI – Appellant
Versus
MAGANBHAI DURLABHBHAI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: MAGANBHAI R.BAROT, MUKESH R.PATEL, Y.U.PATEL

J. B. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner landlady has filed these two petitions against the two tenants as her application under sec. 32t on the basis of the certificate under sec. 88c has been dismissed by the order of the Revenue Tribunal dated February 22 1965 As both these petitions raise common questions they are disposed by this common order:-42 As regards the common question in the two petitions as to the findings that the petitioner landlady did not bona fide require the lands in question for personal cultivation the Revenue Tribunal has mixed up the requirements of sec. 31 with sec32t. Under sec. 31 (1) (a) the landlord is given a right to terminate the tenancy of lands if he bona fide required the same for personal cultivation. However further restriction was put on this right of termination for cultivating the land personally under sec. 31 and by reason of sec. 31a (c) which required that he must fulfill the following condition:- * * * * * * * * under sec. 88c (4) of the Act and whose tenant is therefore treated as an excluded tenant. Sec. 32t (I) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in secs. 31 and 31b both inclusive but subject to the provisions of this section







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