Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar and Another Vs. Waman Shripad Mage (Since Dead) Through Lrs - Court Judgment
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Case Number||Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5086 of 1981|
|Judge|| A.D. Koshal and; Amarendra Nath Sen, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1981SC1956; (1981)4SCC143|
|Acts||Bombay Rent Act|
|Appellant||Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar and Another|
|Respondent||Waman Shripad Mage (Since Dead) Through Lrs|
|Cases Referred||Damadilal v. Parashram|
- motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2)(a)(ii): [dr. arijit pasayat & a.k. ganguly, jj] exercise of power in the present case, a, not having a valid driving licence driving the vehicle carrying 14 persons meeting with accident - in claim for damages before consumer forum, one s, shown as driving the vehicle - entries in case diary and post-mortem report clearly showing a as driver of the vehicle and not s on ground that the vehicle was used in violation of terms of the policy appellant insurer had repudiated the claim district forum however allowed the claim and also awarded compensation to respondent - state and national commissions upheld the same held, relevance of entries in case diary and post-mortem report not considered in proper perspective by all the forums below...........that the transfer of a tenancy after it ceases to be contractual is not permissible under the bombay rent act. this proposition is not controverter by mr. lalit, learned counsel for the petitioners, whom we have heard at length. his main contention, however, is that a dissenting note has been struck by a bench of three judges in damadilal v. parashram : air1976sc2229 . we do not agree. the case cited last did not arise under the bombay act but interpreted the provisions of a madhya pradesh legislation in regard to landlords and tenants. we may further state that the case first noted is a four judge decision and is binding on a bench of three judges. no question of any dissent such as has been referred to by mr. lalit, therefore, arises. jai singh's case (supra) holds the field till.....
A.D. Koshal, J.
1. The matter is concluded by the dictum of four Judges in Jai Singh Murari v. Sovani (P) Ltd. : 2SCR603 , to the effect that the transfer of a tenancy after it ceases to be contractual is not permissible under the Bombay Rent Act. This proposition is not controverter by Mr. Lalit, learned Counsel for the petitioners, whom we have heard at length. His main contention, however, is that a dissenting note has been struck by a Bench of three Judges in Damadilal v. Parashram : AIR1976SC2229 . We do not agree. The case cited last did not arise under the Bombay Act but interpreted the provisions of a Madhya Pradesh legislation in regard to landlords and tenants. We may further state that the case first noted is a four Judge decision and is binding on a Bench of three Judges. No question of any dissent such as has been referred to by Mr. Lalit, therefore, arises. Jai Singh's case (supra) holds the field till today in so far as the Bombay Rent Act is concerned and we are bound by it.
2. In these circumstances we dismiss the petition for special leave.