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

1984 Supreme(Guj) 139

G.T.NANAVATI, I.C.BHATT, P.SUBRAMONIAN POTI
PRABHASHANKAR SHANKARLAL JOSHI – Appellant
Versus
FULSINHJI KESHARISINHJI PARMAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: N.S.SHETH, S.K.ZAVERI

I. C. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) IN this reference a question of far reaching importance as to the interpretation of a proviso to Section 29 of the Bombay Rents Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 arises for consideration. The question which is referred to this Bench is whether an appeal would lie against the determination of any question contem- plated under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in execution proceedings for enforcing decrees and orders under the Bombay Rents Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) and the Rules made thereunder.

( 2 ) THE relations of landlord and tenant are covered by the Transfer of Property Act 1890 Chapter 7 Sec- tions 105 to 117. But the provisions were found inadequate to meet the situation created by acute shortage of housing accommodation. Therefore Rent (War Restriction) Act 2 of 1918 was the first enactment brought into force for controlling the rent and housing accommodation. It came into force in the Bombay Presidency on April 10 1918 and remained in force upto December 31 1925 Thereafter on the expiry of Bombay Act 2 of 1918 upto 1939 the relations of landlord and tenant were gover













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