Appeal by Special leave from Judgment and order dated the 6th July, 1981 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.
The appellant, therefore, preferred to file a fresh suit for eviction of the respondent under Section 13 A 1 of the Bombay Rent Act rather than pursue the suit filed in 1971.
This was in 1971.
The tenant moved the High Court of Bombay under Art.
He produced the certificate required to be produced under Section 13 A 1.
The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority companycurrently found that the Appellant bona fide required the flat for his own occupation and decreed the suit.
227 of 1981.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Soon after his retirement, the appellant filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent on the grounds of default in payment of rent, bona fide personal requirement and unlawful submitting.
Raju Ramachandran and Mrs Sadhana Ramachandran for the Appellant.
227 of the Constitution A learned single Judge of the High Court, while number interfering with the companycurrent finding of the subordinate tribunals that the landlord bona fide require the premises for his own occupation, nevertheless set aside the decree for eviction on the ground that Section 13 A 1 did number enable a member or a retired member of the armed forces to seek the remedy provided by Section 13 A 1 of the Bombay Rent Act if the premises were already in the occupation of the tenant when he became the landlord has appealed under Art.
B. Bhasme, K. Rajendra Choudhary and K. Sivraj Choudhary for Respondent.
2906 of 1981.
He filed a fresh suit under the new provision.
M N Shroff for Respondent No.
While the suit was still pending, the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Central Act, 1947 was amended in 1975 by the introduction of sec.
13 A 1.
The respondent was already the tenant of the premises when the appellant inherited it as the owner.
2 NOT PRESENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The appellant in this appeal by special leave under Art.
