Search Results for "bombay tenancy act"

1763 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1763 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Enhancement of Compensation for Agricultural Land Acquired for Konkan Railway Project. Tenant's restricted rights under Agricultural Tenancy Act do not preclude consideration of potential for development for compensation purposes.

The appellant, Damaian C. Menezes, was a tenant of a khazan paddy field admeasuring 2550 square meters in Survey No.190/3, Malar Village, Goa. The Gov...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Landlord's Second Appeal, Upholds Tenant's Right to New Premises Despite Demolition of Old Shop. Tenancy Rights Were Held Not to Be Terminated by Demolition, and Doctrine of Frustration Under Section 56 of Indian Contract Act Was Inapplicable.

This second appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, a tenant in a shop block owned by the appellant-landlord. The parties ha...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute, Directs Reference of Tenancy Issue to Mamlatdar. Compensation for Survey No. 218/3 Cannot Be Decided Without Determining Tenancy Claim Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The case arises from a land acquisition proceeding initiated by a Notification dated 16.08.1994 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Summary Eviction Order Against 80-Year-Old Tenant in MHADA Redevelopment Dispute. Petitioner's Right to Alternate Accommodation Under Section 95A of MHADA Act Upheld as Board Failed to Provide Permanent Rehabilitation Before Eviction.

The petitioner, Sugrabai Gulam Abas Tambawala, an 80-year-old housewife, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challeng...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction of Multinational Company in Rent Control Case. Section 3(1)(b) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 exempts premises let to multinational companies from protection of the Act, and concurrent findings of fact are not interfered with under Section 115 CPC.

The applicant, Eloff Hansson (India) Pvt. Ltd., was a tenant in office premises in Mumbai. The respondents, landlords, terminated the tenancy in 1993 ...