FEROZE N DOTIVALA Vs. P M WADHWANI
LAWS(SC)-2002-12-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
December 03,2002
FEROZE N.DOTIVALA
Appellant
VERSUS
P.M.WADHWANI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
HELMAN V. HORSHAM [REFERRED TO]INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER V. JOINER [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN LAL OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
P KASILINGAM VS. P S G COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. ROYCE PEREIRA [REFERRED TO]
SARFARZALI NAWABALI MIRZA VS. MISS MANECK G. BURJORJI REPORTER [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
COTTAGE INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-9-36] [REFERRED TO]DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-5-281] [REFERRED TO]
HAIDER ABBAS VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SAGAR MAL SHAMBHOO NATH [LAWS(ALL)-2005-12-96] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. UMESH NATH [LAWS(GAU)-2004-5-50] [REFERRED TO]
B RAMA RAJU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2011-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANBHAI B PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-2-57] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE WEST BENGAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-3-89] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN COPPER VS. BHAGWATI GASES LIMITED [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
KHADER BASHA VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER [LAWS(APH)-2011-9-139] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-313] [REFERRED TO]
PREMIUM SUITING P. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-3-265] [REFERRED TO]
DINAKAR PROCESS VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [LAWS(APH)-2015-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX U P VS. KAJARIA CERAMICS LTD [LAWS(SC)-2005-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
PAUL ENTERPRISE VS. RAJIB CHATTERJEE [LAWS(SC)-2009-1-114] [REFERRED TO]
BHUWALKA STEEL INDUS LTD VS. BOMBAY IRON AND STEEL LABOUR BD [LAWS(SC)-2009-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. VS. M/S. ANNAPURNA ELECTRONICS [LAWS(KAR)-2013-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX VS. BHUSHAN STEEL AND STRIPS LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-97] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SHARMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-109] [REFERRED TO]
BALBEER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-124] [REFERRED]
ASHOK PRATAP RAI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-180] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH GUPTA VS. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2017-5-83] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SARASWAT VS. RICHA OJHA SARASWAT [LAWS(CHH)-2018-5-50] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN JADON VS. STATE OF MP & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2019-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ NAGAR EXTENSION N.H. 58 DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-365] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)An advertisement was published in the Times of India dated 5.10. 1969; it read as follows :
"Accommodation available for two rooms self-contained apartment with sea-view, telephone optional ideal for executives, couples, reasonable terms",
(2.)The appellant before us, namely, Feroze N. Dotivala approached the respondents namely, Wadhwanis in response to the above noted advertisement and he was given the accommodation on payment of certain amount as compensation for the same. The moot question that falls for consideration in this appeal is about the nature of occupation of the premises as to whether the appellant is a 'licensee1 or a 'paying guest' in the light of the relevant provisions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').
(3.)According to the appellant, in the year 1975 after the death of the mother of the respondent no. 1, he wanted the appellant to give in writing that he was occupying the premises as a paying guest. The appellant did not accede to the request made. This gave rise for the appellant to file a suit for declaration, namely, suit no. 2365 of 1975 in the small causes court, bombay for a decree in his favour that he be declared as a deemed tenant of the accommodation and an injunction was also prayed against the defendant respondents to the effect that they would not disturb his possession over the premises in question. The suit was decreed. The appeal filed before the division bench of the small causes court was dismissed. A writ petition, however, preferred by the respondent has been allowed by the High court holding that the appellant before us is a 'paying guest'. Hence, this appeal against the judgment and order of the High court.
"Accommodation available for two rooms self-contained apartment with sea-view, telephone optional ideal for executives, couples, reasonable terms",
(2.)The appellant before us, namely, Feroze N. Dotivala approached the respondents namely, Wadhwanis in response to the above noted advertisement and he was given the accommodation on payment of certain amount as compensation for the same. The moot question that falls for consideration in this appeal is about the nature of occupation of the premises as to whether the appellant is a 'licensee1 or a 'paying guest' in the light of the relevant provisions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').
(3.)According to the appellant, in the year 1975 after the death of the mother of the respondent no. 1, he wanted the appellant to give in writing that he was occupying the premises as a paying guest. The appellant did not accede to the request made. This gave rise for the appellant to file a suit for declaration, namely, suit no. 2365 of 1975 in the small causes court, bombay for a decree in his favour that he be declared as a deemed tenant of the accommodation and an injunction was also prayed against the defendant respondents to the effect that they would not disturb his possession over the premises in question. The suit was decreed. The appeal filed before the division bench of the small causes court was dismissed. A writ petition, however, preferred by the respondent has been allowed by the High court holding that the appellant before us is a 'paying guest'. Hence, this appeal against the judgment and order of the High court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.