Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
6 judgments · newest first · showing 1–6
The applicants, family members and tenants of three ground‑floor rooms in Gaurishankar Chawl, challenged a Small Causes Court decree ordering their eviction for non‑payment of rent and for alleged permanent alterations. The landlord had served a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent …
The Applicants, members of a family, were tenants of three ground‑floor rooms in a Mumbai chawl owned by the Respondent firm. The landlord issued a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 alleging non‑payment of rent of Rs 280.50 per month, leading to an eviction suit. The …
The Applicants, members of a family, were tenants of three ground‑floor rooms in a Mumbai chawl owned by the Respondent firm. The landlord issued a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 alleging non‑payment of rent of Rs 280.50 per month, leading to an eviction suit. The …
Kamla Devi, the landlord, let a big room to Laxmi Devi, the tenant, who later constructed an unauthorised latrine on an adjacent vacant plot of land (9'x7'). The parties compromised, making the plot a rented premises at Rs 5 per month. Kamla later terminated the tenancy and sued for possession of …
G.P. Volkart Ltd. had obtained municipal approval to construct a 30‑storey building with an FSI of 2.45. After the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Act, 1974 came into force, the Metropolitan Authority rejected the application within the statutory 60‑day period, prompting the company to appeal …
The landlord filed an eviction suit in 1970 against tenant K.M.M. Shetty and others, which was decreed in his favour. The Supreme Court allowed the tenant to remain in possession until 31 March 1989 on condition that he and his employees file an undertaking to vacate thereafter. In early 1989 a …
