R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision application filed under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents (Hotel and Lodging House Rent Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the said Act) has been placed before this Division Bench pursuant to the order dated 11-10-2001 made by the learned Single Judge stating that the view taken by a Single Judge of this Court in Shantaben Harilal Brahmbhatt v. Hasmukhlal Maneklal Chokshi, reported in 2001 (2) G. L. R. 1615, was inconsistent with the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yasodai Ammal, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1745.

( 2 ) A contention was taken up before the learned Single Judge in the revision application that the suit of the respondent for eviction was not maintainable, because, contractual tenancy of the petitioner was not terminated by serving any notice determining the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The petitioner, in support of this contention, relied upon the decision of this Court in Shantabens case (supra), more particularly the observations made therein to the effect that the basic principle was that, without determination of the tenancy, no suit for evi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document