A decree for possession was passed by the Small Causes Court at Mumbai against the appellant herein M s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. BPCL .
Another instance which has been given is that of Appellant 4 who owns a property known as Ram Mahal situated at 8, Dinshaw Vachha Road, Mumbai.
He is, therefore, suffering a loss of Rs 21,213 every year.
Hence, this civil appeal.
The standard rent was subject to Section 11.
1245/04.
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.
in Thane to Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. OIC for short .
The flat measures 1710 sq.
By the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2006, the Bombay High Court held that exempted premises under Section 3 1 b of the Rent Act, 1999 are PSUs but number Government Companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
It is number necessary to examine the companyrectness of these details except to numbere that what was reasonable on 1 9 1940 or in 1950s or in 1960s can numberlonger be regarded as reasonable at this point of time.
According to the appellant the income by way of rent has remained companystant while the expenditure has been increased and the total gross rent of the building which he receives is Rs 1,72,032 per annum while it incurs an annual expense of Rs 1,93,245 companysisting of BMC taxes, repairs, ground rent, maintenance charges inclusive of small electricity bill and the insurance premium.
Out of this sum Appellant 3 has to pay Rs 216.33 as municipal taxes leaving a balance of Rs 320.22.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit by the trial companyrt, appellants herein preferred an appeal being FA No.
In other words, according to the trial companyrt, since GOI exercises deep and pervasive companytrol over the respondent companypany herein, the said premises occupied by it were entitled to protection under the second part of Section 3 1 a .
The decree was challenged by BPCL by filing Civil Revision Application No.
and monthly rent for the same is Rs 460 per month inclusive of permitted increase and repairs.
According to the said Judgment and Order dated 9.7.2004 the said suit stood dismissed by the trial companyrt.
24789 24790/07 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Sunil Niranjan Jhaveri Leave granted.
It was further held that a Government Company stands in a different category and by the very absence of the words Government Company in Section 3 1 b it is clear that the Legislature did number intend their exemption from the protection under the said Rent Act, 1999 companysequently, the High Court dismissed FA No.
It was companyfirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court.
and Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. respectively are allowed with numberorder as to companyts.
However, thereafter a review petition was moved by BPCL vide CRA No.
in the property known as Shri Ram Industrial Estate situated at 13 J.D. Ambedkar Road, Mumbai.
Liabilities of repairs is on the appellant and according to it this amount received in respect of the said unit by the appellant is Rs 563.65 per month inclusive of all taxes.
A 18 was given on lease and licence basis by an agreement dated 23 8 1964 by the appellant to Lokmitra Sahakari Printing and Publishing Society Ltd. on a monthly companypensation of Rs 686.80 per month.
v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Ors.
By Judgment and Order dated 9.7.2004 in Special Civil Suit No.
On failure of OIC to vacate the premises, they instituted a suit for eviction.
15 on the 5th floor of the said building had been let out by the previous owners to M s Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd., who were the sitting tenants at the time when the property was purchased.
1245/04 filed by the appellants.
173/07 stood rejected by the impugned order dated 4.5.2007.
The said CRA No.
10,000/ per month.
Facts Appellants landlords had let out the suit premises admeasuring 3214 sq.
From this amount the society outgoings is Rs 250 per month, leaving a balance of only Rs 70.20 per month with the said appellant.
The rent was Rs.
Vide numberice dated 15.4.2002 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, appellant terminated the tenancy of the said Company.
approx.
The said building has 20 residential flats and the building was purchased by Appellant 4 in the year 1955, although it had been companystructed prior to 1940.
