SHAH DHANSUKHLAL CHHAGANLAL versus DALICHAND VIRCHAND SHROFF AND OTHERS

SHAH DHANSUKHLAL CHHAGANLAL versus DALICHAND VIRCHAND SHROFF AND OTHERS

The appellant tenant was not protected under s. 12(1) because he did not make an application under s. 11(3) nor pay amounts specified by the court before expiry of the statutory period; nor did he fulfill the requirements under s. 12(3)(b) by continuing to pay or tender rent and permitted increases during the suit. Therefore, the decree for eviction was justified.

Parties
Appellant: Shah Dhansukhlal Chhaganlal; Respondents: Dauchand Virchand Shroff and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 March 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Gujarat High Court Judgment in Civil Revision Application No. 150 of 1960
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Eviction of Tenant for Arrears of Rent, Protection of Tenant Under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Interpretation and Application of Sections 12(1), 12(3)(a), 12(3)(b)
Tenancy Rent Control Eviction of Tenant for Arrears of Rent Protection of Tenant Under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Interpretation and Application of Sections 12(1), 12(3)(a), 12(3)(b)

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shah Dhansukhlal Chhaganlal

Appellant

Dauchand Virchand Shroff and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Gujarat High Court Judgment in Civil Revision Application No. 150 of 1960

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant tenant was entitled to the protection of section 12(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant tenant satisfied the requirements of section 12(3)(b) of the Act so as to avoid eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant tenant was not protected under s. 12(1) because he did not make an application under s. 11(3) nor pay amounts specified by the court before expiry of the statutory period; nor did he fulfill the requirements under s. 12(3)(b) by continuing to pay or tender rent and permitted increases during the suit. Therefore, the decree for eviction was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Eviction decree against the appellant tenant confirmed.