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

1995 Supreme(Guj) 350

J.N.BHATT
MANHARLAL MOHANLAL ZAVERI – Appellant
Versus
INDULAL VADILAL MEHTA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: M.N.POPAT, SURESH M.SHAH

J. N. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) COULD the landlord file a suit for possession on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of self-occupation under Sec. 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay rent Act) against the tenant who is leased the premises till his life time, is the sole question requiring adjudication in this revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay rent Act.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are the original plaintiffs-landlords and the respondent is the original defendant-tenant. They are hereinafter addressed to as the plaintiffs and tenant for the sake of convenience and brevity. The landlords filed Regular Civil suit No. 646 of 1975 against the tenant for possession contending that they require the demise premises reasonably and bonafide for self-occupation under sec. 13 (1) (g ). The suit was contested by the tenant by filing written statement, inter alia, contending that the landlords do not require demise premises reasonably 1996 (1) MANHARLAL M. ZAVERI v. INDULAL V. MEHTA (C. R. A.)-Bhatt, J. 83 and bona fide for personal occupation. The tenant also contended that the suit is barred by res judicata as the landlords had filed earli









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