Norman Macleod, C J
[1] We think that in this case a certificate to appeal to His Majesty s Privy Council must be granted. The plaintiff s seek to eject their tenant in order that they may occupy the premises themselves; while the tenant seeks the protection of the Bombay Rent Act. The decree, therefore, allowing possession of the tenancy involves directly a claim or question to or respecting property over Rs. 10,000, as the monthly rent of the premises is Rs. 275 and capitalised at twenty years purchase the value of the property will be over Rs. 10,000.
[2] Costs to be costs in the appeal.
Are you looking for a
legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a
legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and
Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.
Kasturbhai Manibhai Nagarseth v. Hiralal Dnanavati
Kasturbhai Manibhai Nagarseth v. Hiralal Dnanavati
(High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
Appeal No. 88 Of 1921 | 27-02-1922
Advocate List
- For the Appearing Parties ----
Bench
- HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NORMAN MACLEOD
- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE COYAJEE
Eq Citations
- 1922 (24) BOMLR 350
- 67 IND. CAS. 938
- AIR 1923 BOM 23 1
- LQ/BomHC/1922/53
Head Note
Constitution of India — Art. 134 — Appeal to Privy Council — Certificate — Bombay Rent Act, 1947, S. 12 — Ejectment suit — Possession of tenancy — Plaintiff seeking to eject tenant in order to occupy premises themselves — Tenant seeking protection of Rent Act — Held, decree allowing possession of tenancy directly involved a claim or question to or respecting property over Rs. 10,000 — Appeal to Privy Council must be granted — Costs to be costs in appeal — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Or. 43 R. 1
