Search Results for "Bombay Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947"

66 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 66 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction Decree Against Tenant for Non-User and Landlord's Bonafide Requirement Under Bombay Rent Act. Tenant's occasional use of premises does not constitute continuous residence; landlord's need for own use justified eviction.

The dispute arises from a suit for eviction filed by the landlord (respondent) against the tenant (petitioner) under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodgi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Decree in Rent Control Case — Concurrent Findings of Default and Non-User Not Interfered With. Tenant's Failure to Pay Rent and Non-User of Premises for Stated Purpose Justify Eviction Under Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947.

The Supreme Court dismissed two civil appeals arising from a landlord-tenant dispute over eviction. The plaintiff purchased the suit property in 1986 ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeals in Rent Control Cases, Upholds Appellate Court's Finding of No Tenancy. Landlord's Suit for Possession Fails as Tenant Proves Payment of Rent and Absence of Valid Termination Under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

The appellant, Radhyesham Ramkaran Choube, filed four second appeals (Second Appeal Nos. 4, 8, 11, and 16 of 2002) against a common judgment dated 10....

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Revision Petition by Tenants in Eviction Suit — Landlord's Bonafide Need Not Proved. Requirement of Suit Premises for Business of Son-in-law Not Established as Bonafide Need Under Section 13(1)(g) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

This Civil Revision Application was filed by the original defendants/tenants, Smt. Gumfabai Dattalal Jaiswal and Pramod Dattalal Jaiswal, challenging ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Specific Performance Suit, Sets Aside Decree for Possession Due to Non-Compliance with Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Plaintiffs Failed to Disclose Earlier Agreement for Sale, Barring Subsequent Suit for Specific Performance.

The appellants, original defendants, challenged the judgment and decree dated 14th October 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ka...