KRISHANLAL ISHWARLAL DESAI versus BAI VIJKOR AND OTHERS

KRISHANLAL ISHWARLAL DESAI versus BAI VIJKOR AND OTHERS

The period of one month prescribed in s. 17(1) for occupation applies to both decrees passed under s. 13(1)(g) and s. 13(1)(i). Since the appellant did not occupy the premises within one month of recovering possession, the respondents were entitled to an order for repossession.

Parties
Appellant: Krishanlal Ishwarlal Desai; Respondents: Bai Vijkor and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 January 1963
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Order of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 335 of 1962
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Recovery of Possession, Reasonable and Bonafide Requirement, Period of Limitation for Occupation, Re Possession by Tenant
Landlord and Tenant Rent Control Recovery of Possession Reasonable and Bonafide Requirement Period of Limitation for Occupation Re Possession by Tenant

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krishanlal Ishwarlal Desai

Appellant

Bai Vijkor and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Order of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 335 of 1962

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the period of limitation of one month for occupation under s. 17(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 applies to decrees passed under s. 13(1)(g) as well as s. 13(1)(i)

Ratio Decidendi

The period of one month prescribed in s. 17(1) for occupation applies to both decrees passed under s. 13(1)(g) and s. 13(1)(i). Since the appellant did not occupy the premises within one month of recovering possession, the respondents were entitled to an order for repossession.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents entitled to an order for possession of the premises with costs