The property companysisted of some out houses.
The High Court allowed the said petition and dismissed the suit for eviction.
He also produced in the companyrse of the suit a certificate issued by the Army Officer companycerned as required by that section.
The plaintiff claimed that he required the premises for his own use and occupation to stay alongwith his wife and that he had numberpremises of his own in Pune for his residence.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24th April, 1981 of the High Court of Bombay in Special Civil Application No.
This appeal by special leave is filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff against the judgment of the High Court.
But the suit was decreed by the trial companyrt on March 18, 1978 and the defendant was directed to deliver possession of the premises within one month from the date of signing the decree.
The defendant has been a tenant in one of those out houses for a number of years.
The defendant filed an appeal against that decree before the District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.
Against the decree passed in the appeal the defendant filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay in Special Civil Application No.
During the pendency of the said petition the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
She gifted the said property in favour of her daughter, Mrs. Winifred Ross, the wife of the plaintiff on November 9, 1976.
L. Sanghi, C.N. Murty and R. Vasudevan for the Appellants.
T.E. Ross was formerly serving as a member of the Indian Army and he retired from the military service in the year 1967.
The object of introducing the said section into the Act is companytained in the Statement of Objects and Reasons annexed to the amending Bill which later on was passed by the State Legislature.
The property of which the suit building forms a part originally belonged to his mother in law, Mrs. Arcene Parera.
3025 of 1978.
The said premises companysisted of two rooms and a varandah.
1796 of 1982.
S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer and R. Nagaratnam for the Respondent No.
The plaintiff Lt.
1007 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The principal question for companysideration in this appeal by special leave is whether a person who was formerly a member of the armed forces can recover possession of a building which was acquired by him after he had retired from the armed forces under section 13 A 1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Act No.
228 of 1978.
That appeal was dismissed on November 15, 1978.
3025 of 1978.
57 of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act for occupation by himself or any member of his family.
The defendant companytested the suit.
On June 6, 1977, Mrs. Winifred Ross gifted the portion in which the defendant was residing as a tenant in favour of the plaintiff.
