SHAHA RATANSI KHIMJI AND SONS Vs. PROPOSED KUMBHAR SONS HOTEL P. LTD.
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-51
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
July 10,2014
Shaha Ratansi Khimji and Sons
Appellant
VERSUS
Proposed Kumbhar Sons Hotel P. Ltd.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JIWANLAL AND CO. V. MANOT AND CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA V. BISHOP OF VANCOUVER ISLAND [REFERRED TO]
RAJA DHRUV DEV CHAND VS. RAJA HARMOHINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
D G GOSE AND CO AGENTS PRIVATE LIMITED S K SUBRAMANIAN CUSTOMS CLEARING AGENTS ASSOCIATION ALEX CHERIYAN SOUTH CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED N KUNHIRAMAN ABRAHAM ABRAHAM K G BHASKARAN MRS LU VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
VANNATTANKANDY IBRAYI VS. KUNHABDULLA HAJEE [OVERRULED]
T LAKSHMIPATHI VS. P NITHYANANDA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
RAHIM BUX VS. MOHAMMAD SHAFI [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE J OVUNGAL VS. PETER [REFERRED TO]
V KALPAKAM AMMA VS. MUTHURAMA IYER MUTHURKRISHNA LYER [REFERRED TO]
HIND RUBBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. TAYEBHAI MOHAMMEDBHAI BAGASARWALLA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
FILOMENA MUDGAL VS. MARIA ALINA AUGUSTAS RODRIGUES [LAWS(BOM)-2023-6-1105] [REFERRED TO]PREMAN VS. GOPI [LAWS(KER)-2015-7-256] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR RAIJADA VS. RATAN KUMAR SURANA [LAWS(CAL)-2016-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
JAYASWAL NECO INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2014-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI A. M. MANIKANDAN VS. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2019-5-190] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAM SHRIVASTAVA VS. RAMPUR FINANCE CORPORATION PVT. LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2023-4-107] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR THAKUR SINGH VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SOLAN & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-374] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT CHOKSEY AND ORS. VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-180] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-277] [REFERRED TO]
FARZIN ARDESHIR ADEL VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
MOHANDAS K.B. VS. SYAMALA [LAWS(KER)-2016-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANAND VS. GIRISH SONI [LAWS(DLH)-2020-5-74] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PRAKASH & ORS VS. DISTT JUDGE SULTANPUR & ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
SAYEDA RUBIA BEGUM (MUSTT) AND ANOTHER VS. DASARATH PRASAD [LAWS(GAU)-2017-8-132] [REFERRED TO]
BABULAL CHAWDHARY VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE S.D. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHERI PURAB PASCHIM CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2023-9-172] [REFERRED TO]
HIND RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-193] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KHUDDUS VS. H.M. CHANDIRAMANI [LAWS(SC)-2021-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
VIPIN KHANNA VS. NARINDER KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-282] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH MALIK (DECEASED) VS. J.S. SHARMA AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
KESAR PRALHAD PALI VS. RAMESH CHAITRAM NEWARE [LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-558] [REFERRED TO]
MR. JAYANT SUNDERDAS KARIA AND ORS VS. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
KHALIL AHMED MOHD ALI HAMDULAY VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2019-8-171] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th July, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal No. 109 of 2006. By the impugned judgment, the High Court affirmed the concurrent finding of the lower courts that the appellant's tenancy right had lapsed and dismissed the second appeal.
(2.)When the matter came before this Court, vide order dated 5th January, 2007, this Court referred the matter to a Bench of three Judges. The said order reads as under:
"Apparently there seems to be inconsistency in the view taken by this Court in Vannattankandy Ibrayi Vs. Kunhabdulla Hajee, 2001 1 SCC 564 and T.Lakshmipathi & Ors. Vs. R.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors., 2003 5 SCC 150.
Leave granted.
The matter shall be placed before a three Judge Bench.
Status quo shall be maintained in the meanwhile."
(3.)In the case of Vannattankandy Ibrayi Vs. Kunhabdulla Hajee, 2001 1 SCC 564, this Court formulated two questions for consideration:
"(a) Whether the tenancy in respect of the premises governed by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as [pic]"the State Rent Act") is extinguished by destruction of the subject- matter of tenancy i.e. the premises by natural calamities, and
(b) On the destruction of property whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit for recovery of possession of land brought by the landlord."
Both questions were answered in the affirmative.
(2.)When the matter came before this Court, vide order dated 5th January, 2007, this Court referred the matter to a Bench of three Judges. The said order reads as under:
"Apparently there seems to be inconsistency in the view taken by this Court in Vannattankandy Ibrayi Vs. Kunhabdulla Hajee, 2001 1 SCC 564 and T.Lakshmipathi & Ors. Vs. R.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors., 2003 5 SCC 150.
Leave granted.
The matter shall be placed before a three Judge Bench.
Status quo shall be maintained in the meanwhile."
(3.)In the case of Vannattankandy Ibrayi Vs. Kunhabdulla Hajee, 2001 1 SCC 564, this Court formulated two questions for consideration:
"(a) Whether the tenancy in respect of the premises governed by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as [pic]"the State Rent Act") is extinguished by destruction of the subject- matter of tenancy i.e. the premises by natural calamities, and
(b) On the destruction of property whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit for recovery of possession of land brought by the landlord."
Both questions were answered in the affirmative.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.