REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

BABUBHAI AND JAYANTILAL KALYANBHAI Appellant

V/S

SHAH BHARATKUMAR RATILAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

KRISHNA PRASAD BOSE V. SARAJUBALA DASI [REFERRED]
BAI DIWALI V. PATEL BECHARDAS [REFERRED]
DEALER PROPERTIES LTD. V. BROOKS [REFERRED]
SALTER V. LASK [REFERRED]
RAI BRIJ RAJ KRISHNA AND ANOTHER V. S.K.SHAW AND BROTHERS [REFERRED]
SOLOMON V. ORWELL [REFERRED]
MEHOMED JUSUB ABDULLA V. FATMABAI JUSAB ABDULLA [REFERRED]
WILLIAMS V. WILLIAMS [REFERRED]
ANAND NIVAS (PVT.) LRD. V. ANANDJI KALSANJI [REFERRED]
HAJI MOHAMMED DIN AND ANOTHER V. SHRI NARAIN DASS [REFERRED]
BHAIYA PUNJALAL BHAGWANDDIN VS. DAVE BHAGWATPRASAD PRABHUPRA SAD [REFERRED]
MANGILAL VS. SUGAN CHAIID RATHIDECEASED AND AFTER HIM HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES [REFERRED]
MANUJENDRA DUTT VS. PURNEDU PROSAD ROY CHOWDHURY [REFERRED]
JAGDISH CHANDER GHATTERJEE VS. KISHAN [REFERRED]
PUWADA VENKATESWARA RAO VS. CHIDAMANA VENKATA RAMANA [REFERRED]
DAMADILAL VS. PARASHRAM [REFERRED]
FIRM SARDARILAL VISHWANATH VS. PRITAM SINGH [REFERRED]
V DHANAPAL CHETTIAR VS. YESODAI AMMAL [REFERRED]
SUDHAKAR KASHIRAM ALIAS KASHINATH BHAVSAR VS. NAGINDAS ATMARAM [REFERRED]
PUNJIBEN VS. MOHANLAL MANSUKHBHAI GANDHI [REFERRED]
NANUMAL RIJUMAL VS. LILARAM VENSIMAL [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following two questions have been referred to for our opinion:- 1 Whether the decision of the Division Bench in Nanumal Rajumal v. Lilaram Vensimal and Anr. (1977) 18 Guj. L. R. 858 is a good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal and Others v. Parashram & Others (1976) 4 SCC 855 ?

(2.) If a statutory tenant has also an estate and is heritable and transferable would it require a notice for determination of that estate as prescribed under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act ? 2 The above two questions arise in the following circumstances:-

(3.) The Small Cause Court dismissed the suit by its judgment and order of November 10 1968 since it was of the view that the case of the tenants fell within the terms of sec. 12(3) (b) of the Bombay Rents Hotel Lodging and Boarding House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Bombay Rent Act) since there was a dispute between the landlords and the tenants about the standard rent of the premises in question. The trial Court also found that the respondent-tenants have paid all the rents then due at the time of the first hearing of the suit and therefore they were not tenants in default. The tenancy in question according to the trial Court was not terminated since the notice was not served in the manner prescribed under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore also the suit was not competent for want of notice.

Click here to view full judgment.

BABUBHAI ALIAS JAYANTILAL KALYANBHAI Vs. SHAH BHARATKUMAR RATILAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address