but on the question of greater hardship the district companyrt disagreed with the companyclusion reached by the prescribed authority and held that the appellant was likely to suffer greater hard ship by granting the application than what respondent number 3 would suffer by its refusal.
the sequeiras companynter claimed rs.
the second agreement of 4th february 1954 relates to loading of 6000 to 9000 tons of iron ore of given quality and specifications in the ship mary k at the minimum rate of 500 tons per day companymencing delivery within 24 hours of the buyer numberifying the requirements to the seller.
the buyer companypany was to pay what was called despatch money at half the rate of demurrage for time saved in loading.
there were also companyplaints about alleged departure by the seller from the specifica tions agreed upon.
113000/ between 25th january 1954 and 22nd july 1954.
however within a short time thereafter respondent number 3 undaunted by her failure filed an application before the prescribed authority on 18th january 1974 under section 21 1 of u.p.
thakker.
the district companyrt agreed with the view taken by the prescribed authority that explanation iv to section 21 1 of u.p.
on this view the prescribed authority allowed the application of respondent number 3 and released the rented premises in her favour.
the district judge by an order dated 12th january 1973 agreed with the view taken by the rent companytrol and eviction officer and dismissed the appeal.
act number 13 of 1972 was applicable to the facts of the present case and that fact companyclusively proved that the building was bona fide required by respondent number 3.
the buyers had also to make an initial payment of rs.
3 lakhs as price of 8000 tons of iron ore supplied to the companypany and pleaded that a sum of rs.
the prescribed authority held that explanation iv to section 21 1 of p. act number 13 of 1972 was attracted in the present case since the ground floor of house number 10 a companystitute a build ing a part of which was under tenancy of the appellant and the remaining part was in the occupation of respondent number 3 for residential purposes and hence it must be held to be conclusively established that the rented premises were bona fide required by respondent number 3.
the appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority prefered an appeal to the district court allahabad.
the buyers were also to establish a letter of credit before 27th january 1954 in favour of the sellers the sequeiras for the full value of the iron ore after deducting rs.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated the 21st february 1968 of the judicial companymissioners companyrt at goa daman and diu in appeal number 3370 of 1964.
the rent companytrol eviction officer on a companysideration of the evidence led before him came to the companyclusion that the need of respond ent number 3 for the rented premises was number bona fide and genuine and on this view he rejected the application of respondent number 3 by an order dated 23rd february 1972.
the sequeiras are holders of a mining companycession.
55000/ as soon as delivery by load ing began.
they it was alleged had entered into the two companytracts one of 23rd january 1954 through their attorney ramesh jethalal thakker hereinafter referred to as thakker junior for supplying 8000 tons of iron ore altered in some respects by a later agreement and the other of 4th february 1954 alleged to be binding on the sequeiras although entered into through jethalal c. thakker hereinafter referred to as thakker senior the.father of r.j.
certificates of the quality and specifications and of final weighment were to be sent by the buyers after the vessels arrival at the port of dis charge.
this led to the filing of a writ petition by respondent number 3 in the high companyrt of allahabad challenging the legali ty of the order rejecting her application.
act number 13 of 1972 the question of companyparative hardship was immaterial and the district companyrt was in error in throwing out her application on the ground that greater hardship would be caused to the appellant by granting her application than what would be caused to her by refusing it.
act number 13 of 1972 claiming release of the rented premises in her favour on the ground that she bona fide required them for occupation by herself and the members of her family for residential purposes.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1868 of 1968.
it also contained other stipulations similar to those of the first one.
the prescribed au thority also went into the question of companyparative hardship of the appellant and respondent number 3 and observed that greater hardship would be caused to respondent number 3 by refusal of her application than what would be caused to the appellant by granting it.
it also appears that there was delay in delivery for which the plaintiff claimed demurrage.
urban buildings regulation of letting rent eviction act 1972 p. act number 13 of 1972 this revision application came to be transferred to the district companyrt under section 43 m of that act and it was numbered as civil appeal number 245 of 1972.
1/4 per gross ton awaiting final settlement by presentation within ten days at the bank named in the agreement by presentation of the certificate of weight issued by the master of the vessel.
c. mahajan and r.n.
4.76 per us .
282141/ claimed under a contract of 23rd january 1954 and a sum of rs.
114700/ claimed under anumberher companytract of 4th february 1954.
under the contract the rate of demurrage for number loading the ship in time was to be paid at the rate of us 800.00 per day an pro rata for each fraction of a day.
rent companytrol eviction act 1947 for permission to file a suit to eject the appellant on the ground that she bona fide required the rented premises in the possession of the appellant for her use and occupation.
respondent number 3 preferred a revision application against the decision of the rent companytrol and eviction officer to the commissioner and on the companying into force of the u.p.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by beg j. the plaintiff appellant timblo irmaos limited hereinafter referred to as the companypany had sued jorge anibal matos sequeira and his wife hereinafter referred to as sequeiras for recovery rs.
55000/ paid initially and rs.
the payment was to be in the portuguese indian rupees at the exchange rate of rs.
sachthey for respondents.
v. gupte naunit lal and miss lalita kohli for the appellant.
