Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882

7 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

P. ANANTHAKRISHNAN NAIR & ANR.versusDR. G. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR.

1987 INSC 9031 March 1987Dismissed

The appellants, heirs and a receiver of a leasehold property in Madras, sought to invoke Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 to compel the landlords to sell the demised land to them after an ejectment suit was filed. The lease, originally granted in 1924, had been abandoned in 1964 and the bui

OM PRAKASHversusASHWANI KUMAR BASSI

2010 INSC 55027 August 2010Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13‑B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and served the tenant on 19 May 2005, requiring the tenant to apply for leave to contest within 15 days. The tenant filed the application one day late, on 4 June 2005, and then sought condonation of the delay

SA. RAMACHANDRANversusS. NEELAVATHY

1996 INSC 152620 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a tenant, occupied a plot owned by the respondent and raised super‑structures. The respondent filed an eviction suit without first giving the tenant a written notice and observing the three‑month waiting period required under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenant's Protection Act, 1921. The trial cour

LILAWATI H. HIRANANDANIversusUSHA TANDON

1995 INSC 63820 October 1995Dismissed

The original applicant, a tenant of the building's owner, became a member of a co‑operative society that purchased the building and was allotted the flat. She granted a licence to the original respondent over part of the flat, later terminated it and filed an ejectment suit under s.41 of the Presidency Small Causes Cou

PRABHUDAS DAMODAR KOTECHA & ORS.versusMANHABALA JERAM DAMODAR & ANR.

2013 INSC 53413 August 2013Dismissed

The appellants, who were occupying a flat in Bombay as a gratuitous licensee, were evicted by a decree of the Small Causes Court under s.41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 (as amended by the Maharashtra Act of 1976). They appealed, arguing that the term "licensee" in the statute should be limited to

MANSUKHLAL DHANRAJ JAIN AND ORS. ETC.versusEKNATH VITHAL OGALE ETC.

1995 INSC 1068 February 1995Dismissed

The appellants, licensees of certain premises in Greater Bombay, filed suits for permanent injunction in the City Civil Court to prevent the licensor‑defendants from forcibly evicting them. The defendants challenged the City Civil Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that under Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Cou

SAIYAD MOHAMMAD BAKER EL-EDROOS (DEAD) BY LRS.versusABDULHABIB HASAN ARAB AND ORS.

1998 INSC 1702 April 1998Dismissed

The case concerned applications under Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 for settling the scheme of a public trust. One of the original applicants died and, after a long delay, his son sought substitution; another set of applicants also sought to be joined. The Charity Commissioner allowed both substitut

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search