NARPATCHAND A BHANDARI versus SHANTILAL MOOLSHANKAR JANI AND ANR.

NARPATCHAND A BHANDARI versus SHANTILAL MOOLSHANKAR JANI AND ANR.

Usufructuary mortgagee is included as 'landlord' and entitled to sue for eviction under Section 13(1)(c); findings of nuisance and annoyance are supported by evidence; the acts committed by appellant constitute nuisance or annoyance sufficient to warrant eviction.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Narpatchand A Bhandari; Respondent/plaintiff: Shantilal Moolshankar Jani; Respondent/plaintiff: Second Respondent (unspecified)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 March 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Usufructuary Mortgage, Nuisance, Landlord Definition
Landlord Tenant Law Property Law Eviction Usufructuary Mortgage Nuisance Landlord Definition

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narpatchand A Bhandari

Appellant/defendant

Shantilal Moolshankar Jani

Respondent/plaintiff

Second Respondent (unspecified)

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an usufructuary mortgagee is included as 'landlord' under Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and can file for eviction.
  2. 2 Whether the findings regarding nuisance and annoyance are supported by evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the acts committed by the appellant amount to nuisance or annoyance for purposes of eviction under Section 13(1)(c).

Ratio Decidendi

Usufructuary mortgagee is included as 'landlord' and entitled to sue for eviction under Section 13(1)(c); findings of nuisance and annoyance are supported by evidence; the acts committed by appellant constitute nuisance or annoyance sufficient to warrant eviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Advocate's fee payable by appellant-defendant to respondents-plaintiffs fixed at Rs. 2,000.
  • Decree for recovery of possession upheld.