ANIRUDHA RAMAKRISHNA KARLEKAR versus SMT. JANKIBAI R. BEDEKAR

ANIRUDHA RAMAKRISHNA KARLEKAR versus SMT. JANKIBAI R. BEDEKAR

Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act applies to both residential and non-residential premises, and covers cases where the tenant has deliberately used the premises for committing illegal acts, such as repeated sale of adulterated food; tenant taking advantage of tenancy for crime qualifies for eviction.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Petitioner: ANIRUDHA RAMAKRISHNA KARLEKAR; Respondent: SMT. JANKIBAI R. BEDEKAR
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 January 1991
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition / Supreme Court Decision on SLP
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Interpretation of Section 13(1)(c) Bombay Rent Act, Use of Premises for Illegal Purposes
Tenancy Law Eviction Interpretation of Section 13(1)(c) Bombay Rent Act Use of Premises for Illegal Purposes

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ANIRUDHA RAMAKRISHNA KARLEKAR

Petitioner

SMT. JANKIBAI R. BEDEKAR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition / Supreme Court Decision on SLP

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 cover non-residential premises?
  2. 2 What is the scope of 'convicted of using the premises' under Section 13(1)(c)?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act applies to both residential and non-residential premises, and covers cases where the tenant has deliberately used the premises for committing illegal acts, such as repeated sale of adulterated food; tenant taking advantage of tenancy for crime qualifies for eviction.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs