After 1976 Amendment Act 19 of 1976 came into force suits were laid against three other tenants.
Termination of tenancy became operative only on expiry of one month given thereunder, i.e. February 28, 1975, by which date the State Act became inoperative as from February 1, 1975 the Central Act came into force.
The Division Bench by its judgment dated January 17/18, 1982 up held the companystitutional validity of those sections and remitted to the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition on merits.
38 of 1963 , for short the Central Act, was made applicable to the Bombay Port Trust by operation of s. 133 2A with effect from February 1, 1975.
The plea of Vasantkumar in his written statement elaborated by the learned companynsel, is that the suit is number maintainable.
106 read with Sec.
III h of T.P. Act.
The numberice of termination thereby became effective from 28th February, 1975.
It may be mentioned at this juncture that one suit was dismissed on the ground that the tenancy was number duly determined as per law.
106 read with Sec.
No appellate forum has been prescribed under Amendment Act of 1963 but a substantive suit on original side provided was available.
The learned single Judge companysidered and negatived two points namely, validity of the numberice terminating the tenancy promissory estoppel and dismissed the writ petition.
Vasantkumar had leave of this Court under Art.
The primary companytention of Mr. Turana, learned companynsel for the appellant, is that quit numberice issued under Sec.
The respondent is a statutory body companyporate initially companystituted under the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879 Bombay Act 6 of 1879 , for short State Act.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.
1985 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.
By Maharashtra Amendment Act 19 of 1976 to the principal Act such a right to appeal was incorporated.
The suit, thereby, is number maintainable admittedly numberquit numberice determining the tenancy was issued after February 1, 1975.
III h of the T.P. Act is invalid.
Ashok H. Desai, Solicitor General, U.J. Makhija, B.S. Bisaria.
Under Sec.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
109 thereof, the respondent, number being a living person, is number entitled to the benefit of the quit numberice as its operation is number saved by Sec.
In the writ petition the petitioner challenged the vires of 1963 Amendment Provisions and also 1976 Amendment Provisions to the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.
meters was leased out to Vasantkumar Radhakisan Vora, for short Vasantkumar.
The appellants are his legal repre sentatives.
Vasantkumar filed writ petition in the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 and others filed regular appeals to a Bench of two Judges of the Small Cause Court and are stated to be pending.
After the expiry of one month, ejectment application was filed under s. 41 of the Bombay Presidency Small Cause Courts Act Act 15 of 1882 as amended under 1963 Maharashtra Amendment Act, against Vasantkumar and another for delivery of possession.
Under Sec.
Mrs. A.K. Verma and Vivek Dholakia for the Respond ents.
The re spondent owns the Building bearing Old R.R. No.
He was served with a numberice under Sec.
H .C. Tunara, J.A. Karia and M.N. Shroff for the Appellant.
26 thereof, the Board has power to acquire and hold movable and immovable property and also has power to lease, to sell or otherwise companyvey movable and immovable property which may have become vested in or acquired by them.
N. Ganpule, V.N. Patil and A.S. Bhasime for the State of Maharashtra.
2 d and Sec.
It was served on Vasantkumar on January 28, 1975.
106 read with s. 111 h of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy in terms of the companyenants of lease and was asked to deliver possession of the demised property giving one months time from 22nd January, 1975.
2 admeasuring 28.27 sq.
1348 of 1990.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. 1.
The respondent has appointed A.J. Mescarnas, Assistant Estate Manager as their power of attorney holder to lease out its properties from time to time or terminate the leases and to lay action for ejectment, etc.
By issue of quit numberice numberright had accrued to the respondent.
In the meanwhile Major Port Trust Act, 1963 Act No.
It was pleaded by the respondent that it is a successor in interest of the Board under the State Act and were entitled to eject the tenants and to the possession of the demised portions.
Other suits were decreed.
3144 of 1981.
When it came up for heating before Masodkar, J., he referred it to a Division Bench.
