RAJA RAM MAHADEV PARANJYPE Vs. ABA MARUTI MALI
LAWS(SC)-1961-12-19
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
December 01,1961
RAJA RAM MAHADEV PARANJYPE
Appellant
VERSUS
ABA MARUTI MALI
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
C.N. NAMBUDIRI VS. EDWIN ISRAEL [LAWS(MAD)-1965-4-51] [REFERRED TO]SANDUR MANGANESE AND IRON ORES LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2010-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
AJITSINH ARJUNSINH GOHIL VS. BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT AND ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2017-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKEEL AHMAD @ MUNNA VS. MANORANJAN AGRAWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2014-10-125] [REFERRED TO]
DAHYABHAI LIMJIBHAI DECD VS. AMARCHAND JAGJIVAN [LAWS(GJH)-1970-1-3] [REFERRED]
NAGINDAS KESHAVLAL MEHTA VS. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR RAJKOT [LAWS(GJH)-1987-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
APPASAHEB PANDURANG YADAV VS. APPASAHEB VIRUPAKSH TANDALE [LAWS(BOM)-2023-10-63] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. DINDE KANAKAMMA [LAWS(APH)-1998-6-12] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. D KANAKAMMA [LAWS(APH)-1998-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
THANKAPPAN S/O KUNJAN AND ORS. VS. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS AND CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND ANR. [LAWS(KER)-2002-7-116] [REFERRED TO]
VITHAL VASUDEO KULKARNI VS. MARUTI RAMA NAGANE [LAWS(SC)-1967-9-23] [AFFIRMED]
ADAPA ABBAYI VS. REDDIPANTULU CHOUDHRY [LAWS(APH)-1973-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
DEO CHAND SINGH VS. SHAH MOHAMMAD [LAWS(CAL)-1964-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
POWER GRID CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. VS. KARNATAKA POWER TRANS. CORP. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-600] [REFERRED TO]
THE BOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION LTD. VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2017-9-121] [REFERRED TO]
BABULAL NAGAR VS. SYNTHETICS LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1984-5-4] [RELIED ON]
MUNSHI LAL VS. THAKUR PREM CHAND [LAWS(DLH)-1969-7-6] [REFERRED]
KASHIRAM PANDURANG RAJGURU VS. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT NAGPUR [LAWS(BOM)-1965-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
THANKAPPAN VS. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS AND CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS [LAWS(KER)-2002-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION U.P STATE CONS.& INFRA. VS. REHAM FOUNDATION KANDHARI LANE LAL BAGH LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-361] [REFERRED TO]
DATTU SUBRAO PATIL VS. DATTATRAYA PANDURANG PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-1970-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
MICOLUBE INDIA LIMITED VS. RAKESH KUMAR TRADING AS SAURABH INDUSTRIES [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-151] [REFERRED TO]
MANCHHUBHAI HIRABHAI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS [LAWS(GJH)-1995-2-78] [REFERRED TO]
T. RAVI & ANR. VS. B. CHINNA NARASIMHA [LAWS(SC)-2017-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
DHAN SINGH RAMKRISHNA CHAUDHARI VS. LAXMINARAYAN RAMKISHAN [LAWS(SC)-1974-4-14] [RELIED ON]
J K TYRE BANMORE KAMGAR SANGH VS. REGISTRAR, TRADE UNION/REPRESENTATIVE UNION [LAWS(MPH)-2014-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
SINDH TRANSPORT CO VS. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY M P GWALIOR [LAWS(MPH)-1989-11-36] [REFERRED TO]
DATTATRAYA VASUDEV VS. GHAMA CHAVADAS [LAWS(BOM)-2008-9-197] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI B. S. BHAMBRI VS. S. AMAR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1971-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
SARASWATI DYEING AND PRINTING WORKS SURAT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-1989-9-14] [REFERRED]
NOVA ADS VS. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
MICOLUBE INDIA LIMITED VS. RAKESH KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2012-3-587] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHAND SHARMA VS. SECOND ADDL D J MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-1995-9-107] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA VS. CHINMOYEE SEN [LAWS(CAL)-1966-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESH NARAHAR KATTI VS. HAJISAHEB KHADIRSAHEB MULLA [LAWS(SC)-1965-10-6] [RELIED ON]
K H SIRAJ VS. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2006-5-79] [REFERRED TO]
CHINDHA NATHU GUJAR VS. MURLIDHAR SHANKAR GUNE [LAWS(BOM)-1996-8-67] [REFERRED TO]
ROSE VALLEY REAL ESTATES & CON-STRUCTIONS LTD VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2012-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Sarkar, J. -
(1.)These four appeals are by landlords whose applications to the authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for possession of the lands held by their tenants, on the ground that the tenancies had been terminated by due notices on the tenants' failure to pay rents for three years, were dismissed.
(2.)These authorities refused in three of these cases to make an order for possession either because the tenants had paid up all rent which had fallen in arrear or because the authorities thought it proper on the facts of the case to give them time to pay up. They felt that the tenants were entitled to relief against forfeiture on equitable principles. In the fourth case, which is covered by Civil Appeal No. 259 of 1959, it was held that there had not been on the facts of the case default in payment of rent for three years and, therefore, the tenant was entitled to statutory relief against eviction under S. 25 (1) of the Act which we shall later set out.
(3.)The High Court at Bombay by a summary order, without stating any reasons, refused to interfere when moved under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The landlords have therefore filed these appeals with leave of this Court.
(2.)These authorities refused in three of these cases to make an order for possession either because the tenants had paid up all rent which had fallen in arrear or because the authorities thought it proper on the facts of the case to give them time to pay up. They felt that the tenants were entitled to relief against forfeiture on equitable principles. In the fourth case, which is covered by Civil Appeal No. 259 of 1959, it was held that there had not been on the facts of the case default in payment of rent for three years and, therefore, the tenant was entitled to statutory relief against eviction under S. 25 (1) of the Act which we shall later set out.
(3.)The High Court at Bombay by a summary order, without stating any reasons, refused to interfere when moved under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The landlords have therefore filed these appeals with leave of this Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.