https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197982 Family-member tenancy protection under the Bombay Rents Act was confined to residential premises: a relative merely residing with a deceased tenant could not claim tenancy rights in business premises absent clear legislative language. The Court also treated section 12(3)(b) as a conditional protection requiring strict statutory compliance, not a source of equitable discretion to resist eviction when its conditions are unmet. In supervisory review, interference was unwarranted without perversity or jurisdictional error, and the High Court exceeded the limits of Article 227 by disturbing the eviction decree. en-us Tue, 21 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jan 2018 16:46:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197982 Family-member tenancy protection under the Bombay Rents Act was confined to residential premises: a relative merely residing with a deceased tenant could not claim tenancy rights in business premises absent clear legislative language. The Court also treated section 12(3)(b) as a conditional protection requiring strict statutory compliance, not a source of equitable discretion to resist eviction when its conditions are unmet. In supervisory review, interference was unwarranted without perversity or jurisdictional error, and the High Court exceeded the limits of Article 227 by disturbing the eviction decree. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197982