TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court sets aside High Court judgment, emphasizes limits on jurisdiction under Article 227. Tenants to pay increased rent.</h1> <h3>LAXMIKANT REVCHAND BHOJWANI AND ANR. Versus PRATAPSING. MOHANSINGH PARDESHI DECEASED THROUGH HIS HEIRSAN</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring that of the appellate court. The Court emphasized that the ... - Issues involved: The issues involved in this case include the eviction of tenants under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 based on arrears of rent and bona fide requirement by the landlady.Eviction based on arrears of rent:The trial court held that the tenants were liable to be evicted under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act due to their failure to comply with the provisions. However, the appellate court found that the arrears were not proven by the landlady, thus neither Section 12(3)(a) nor Section 12(3)(b) were applicable. The High Court reversed the appellate court's decision, stating that the tenants neglected to pay the arrears, making them liable for eviction.Eviction based on bona fide requirement:The trial court rejected the landlady's case of bona fide requirement. The appellate court also found that the bona fide requirement was not proved. However, the High Court determined that the appellants neglected to make payment of arrears of rent, leading to their liability for eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act.Legal Interpretation:The Supreme Court clarified that the neglect to make payment under Section 12(3)(a) refers to the failure to give due care, attention, or time to payment, not the actual making of payment. Sending a money order within the specified period does not constitute neglect. As the appellants paid the total arrears mentioned in the notice, the provisions of Section 12(3)(a) or Section 12(3)(b) were not applicable in this case.Court's Decision:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored that of the appellate court. The Court emphasized that the High Court's extension of jurisdiction under Article 227 was not justified in this case, as the Act is a special legislation with no provision for second appeal or revision to the High Court. The Court also directed the tenants to pay an increased rent of &8377; 600/- per month from September 1, 1995, considering the fairness and justice of the situation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
