KUNAL R. CHAUDHARI versus PURSHOTTAM B. TODI AND ANR.

KUNAL R. CHAUDHARI versus PURSHOTTAM B. TODI AND ANR.

The applicant was not 'allowed by the State Government to remain in occupation or possession' of the premises on the date of commencement of the ordinance, his authority to occupy had ceased pursuant to government orders, and his continued occupation was solely due to the Supreme Court's interim order. Therefore, he is not a 'Government allottee' and cannot claim protection or statutory tenancy under the amended provisions.

Parties
Appellant: Kunal R. Chaudhari; Respondent: Purshotiam B. Todi; Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 March 1997
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 16184 of 1996 / Supreme Court Application to Be Discharged From Undertaking and Claim as Statutory Tenant After Dismissal of SLP
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Tenancy, Derequisitioning of Premises, Rights of Government Allottees, Retrospective Effects of Legislation, Interpretation of Amendments
Rent Control Land Law Tenancy Law Statutory Tenancy Derequisitioning of Premises Rights of Government Allottees Retrospective Effects of Legislation Interpretation of Amendments

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kunal R. Chaudhari

Appellant

Purshotiam B. Todi

Respondent

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 16184 of 1996 / Supreme Court Application to Be Discharged From Undertaking and Claim as Statutory Tenant After Dismissal of SLP

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant became a 'Government allottee' under Section 5(1-A)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act and entitled to statutory tenancy under Section 15-B after the amendments by Maharashtra Ordinance No. 23 of 1996.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant, having been ordered to vacate requisitioned premises prior to the ordinance, could claim benefit of amended provisions to retain possession.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not 'allowed by the State Government to remain in occupation or possession' of the premises on the date of commencement of the ordinance, his authority to occupy had ceased pursuant to government orders, and his continued occupation was solely due to the Supreme Court's interim order. Therefore, he is not a 'Government allottee' and cannot claim protection or statutory tenancy under the amended provisions.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutory Application No. 3 of 1997 is rejected.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of the respondent assessed at Rupees two thousand and five hundred only.