J.N.BHATT
TOHELRAM RAVALDAS GIDWANI – Appellant
Versus
PARSHOTTAMDAS CHHAGANLAL SHAH – Respondent
( 1 ) ). Should the proof of monetary consideration received by tenant from his subtenant be a sine qua non for an ejectment decree or even in absence thereof an eviction decree could be legally recorded against a tenant who has parted with exclusive possession of the demise premises with no animus to return to use the premises or has lost control over it in view of the statutory expression that the tenant has since coming into operation of this act unlawfully sublet the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein is the sole but substantial question requiring judicial examination investigation and adjudication in this Revision Application filed by an unsuccessful tenant by invoking the powers of the provisions of Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (Bombay Rent Act ).
( 2 ) ). The petitioners are the original defendants and the respondent is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 104/77 for eviction against the defendants on two grounds The plaintiff is the owner of the immovable property known as Kirtikunj situated near ST bus station at M
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.