Skip to content


Ratanji Dorabji Vs. Kisandas Tribhovandas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number O.C.J. Suit No. 1127 of 1920 and Appeal No. 49 of 1920
Judge
Reported inAIR1925Bom302; (1925)27BOMLR340; 94Ind.Cas.923
AppellantRatanji Dorabji
RespondentKisandas Tribhovandas
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....and that the landlord was not reasonable in withholding his assent to the assignment. -.....norman macleod, kt., c.j.1. we think that the learned judge in the court below was right in holding that the defendants' consent to the proposed assignment of the lease had been unreasonably withheld, the ground being that there had been a dispute between the landlord and the tenant with regard to another letting. the learned judge has found as a fact that there was a genuine dispute between the parties, that there was not a determination on the part of the tenant to decline to pay rent, but an objection to pay until the particulars of the tenancy had been definitely ascertained, which was not done till 1919. the appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. We think that the learned Judge in the Court below was right in holding that the defendants' consent to the proposed assignment of the lease had been unreasonably withheld, the ground being that there had been a dispute between the landlord and the tenant with regard to another letting. The learned Judge has found as a fact that there was a genuine dispute between the parties, that there was not a determination on the part of the tenant to decline to pay rent, but an objection to pay until the particulars of the tenancy had been definitely ascertained, which was not done till 1919. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //