Commander A.R.Ravindra vs Jagannath B.Jagtap

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

BOMBAY HIGH COURT - APPELLATE SIDE,BOMBAY
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J
Commander A.R.Ravindra – Appellant
Versus
Jagannath B.Jagtap – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Applicants: Mr.C.R.Dalvi, Mr.K.Y.Mandlik, Mr.Nitin Jamdar, Mr.V.B.Rajure
For the Respondents: Mr.Nitin Jamdar, Mr.C.R.Dalvi, Mr.K.Y.Mandlik

Table of Content
1. overview of the revision applications under the act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments concerning landlord's claim and tenant's opposition. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. legal standards for establishing bonafide requirement under section 13a1. (Para 11 , 12 , 22 , 25)
4. conclusion regarding the lack of substantive proof of the landlord's claims. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

1. All these Revision Applications filed under Section 31F of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act), can be disposed of by common Judgment.

2. The Applicant in Civil Revision Application Nos.15 of 1992 and 16 of 1992 is the landlord and Respondents in the respective Applications are tenants in respect of premises consisting of two rooms each on the ground floor of house No.1623/24, Lane No.19, Bhimpura, Pune within the limits of Pune Cantonment. The respective tenants have filed separate Revision Applications against the self same Judgment and Order passed by the lower Court being Civil Revision Application Nos.258 of 2001 and 259 of 2001. The lower Authority in the proceedings before it against the respective tenants has rejected the cla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

BOMBAY HIGH COURT - APPELLATE SIDE,BOMBAYA.M.KHANWILKAR, JCommander A.R.Ravindra – AppellantVersusJagannath B.Jagtap – Respondent

BOMBAY HIGH COURT - APPELLATE SIDE,BOMBAY
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J
Commander A.R.Ravindra – Appellant
Versus
Jagannath B.Jagtap – Respondent