Bsb v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. By concurrent findings of fact, both the Court below have held that the respondent – Port Trust has validly terminated the tenancy of the applicant by issuing notices on
Judgment
Mr.R.A.Thorat i/by Devendra Udani for the applicants. Mr.U.J.Makhija i/by M/s.Kavita Poojary for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 3RD DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.:
Heard learned advocates for both parties.
By concurrent findings of fact, both the Court below have held that the respondent – Port Trust has validly terminated the tenancy of the applicant by issuing notices on
27.10.1969 and later on 4.7.1977. The Courts have held that the applicants / defendants are not entitled to the 2 protection of either the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Control Act, 1947 or the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
In my view, no error has been committed by the Courts below. The notices issued by the Port Trust terminating the tenancy have been validly issued and, therefore, no fault can be found with the orders passed.
Civil revision application dismissed.
On the application made by the learned advocate for the applicants, the decree will not be executed for a period of 12 weeks from today, on usual undertaking being furnished to this Court within two weeks from today. ..... 3
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 03 Dec 2009. The bench was NISHITA MHATRE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.