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>Landlord's Right to Possession Limited by Amending Act 33 of 1952</h1> <h3>Durlabhai Fakirbhai Versus Jhaverbhai Bhikhabhai And Anr.</h3> Durlabhai Fakirbhai Versus Jhaverbhai Bhikhabhai And Anr. - TMI Issues: Proper interpretation of Act 33 of 1952 amending Section 34, Tenancy Act.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Act 33 of 1952, which amended Section 34 of the Tenancy Act. The landlord had given a notice to the tenant on 6-3-1952, stating the need for personal cultivation of the land. The notice was to expire on 31-3-1953. The landlord filed for possession under Section 29 on 11-4-1953. The issue was whether the amendments in Act 33 of 1952, which came into force on 12-1-1953, applied to the landlord's right to obtain possession after the notice expired on 31-3-1953.2. The key argument revolved around whether the Amending Act affected the landlord's vested right to possession. The Court emphasized that the landlord's right to possession only arises when the tenancy is terminated, not when the notice is given. The amendments imposed limitations on the landlord's right to terminate the tenancy, and the Court held that the Amending Act applied to cases where the notice expired after the Act came into force.3. The Court analyzed the language of Section 34 and the amendments introduced by Act 12 of 1951. The amendments clearly indicated that the Legislature considered both the date of giving the notice and the date of its expiry when determining the landlord's right to terminate the tenancy. The Court rejected the landlord's argument that the Amending Act did not affect the notice given before its enactment, emphasizing that the Act imposed new limitations on the landlord's right to possession.4. The Court also distinguished a judgment of the Calcutta High Court, highlighting that the facts of that case were different. The Court held that the Amending Act did not invalidate notices given before its enactment but rather imposed new restrictions on the landlord's right to obtain possession. The Court concluded that the Amending Act applied to cases where the period of notice expired after the Act came into force.5. In conclusion, the Court held that the Amending Act 33 of 1952 applied to cases where the period of notice expired after the Act came into force, affirming that the landlord's right to possession was subject to the limitations imposed by the amendments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
