My one of the tenant having income above Rs 50000/- per month was not
paying meager rent of Rs. 40/- p.m. since 2006. Yesterday due to one
of my blogs he has come to pay the rent. Am I supposed to collect rent
with interest? As such I hv to pay heavy penalty and interest if I
delay any payment to electricity, water, mobile, MTNL, credit card
dept etc.. and has to face disconnection. Pl. advise.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
"lawful attempts" to get back their ancestral premises
Landlord wins 42-yr-old battle against tenant
Mar 24, 2011, 01.28AM IST TNN
[ Swati Deshpande ]
MUMBAI: The dispute had landed in the small causes court in the same year that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Four rounds and over four decades of litigation later, the trip finally ended in a victory for a Bandra landlord in an eviction battle against a tenant.
A few weeks ago, an appeal bench of S D Darne and A K Shah of the small causes court confirmed a 2010 eviction order. The bench held that the landlords-Clarence Fernandes, Ralph Fernandes and four other brothers, two of whom died since the suit was originally filed-had made out a case of their bona fide requirement and to recover the tenanted 850 sq ft flat in the three-storey building that their father built. The Fernandes family had launched the "lawful attempts" to get back their ancestral premises in 1969, but their victory may not translate into a recovery of premises just yet.
In November 2010, the small causes trial judge passed an eviction decree against the tenants occupying a first-floor flat in Charlesville House in Bandra (W). The tenants- widow of the original tenant, Yasmin Badshah, her son Shahid Badshah and daughter-in-law Tasreen Khan-sought a stay. The judges granted a two-month stay on the eviction so that the tenants could challenge the order in the Bombay high court.
The landlords and other members of their family, through their lawyers Divyakant Mehta and MP Vashi, argued that they needed the flat so that the brothers could stay close to their mother.
The Bombay Rent Act allows a landlord to claim recovery for his genuine need.
In this case, the landlords got part reprieve in 1975. In 1976, the tenants went in appeal and lost. The matter went to HC in 1988 and both sides agreed to go for a re-trial before the small causes court. The battle started afresh and ended in 2011 with the court ruling in the landlords' favour. The tenants argued that they couldn't find alternative accommodation, adding that the landlords were rich and could afford to live elsewhere.
Holding that evidence during trial showed that Shahid and his wife were persons of "good means and financial resources and could easily get premises of their choice, at least on rent", the judges said the tenants, if evicted, would not suffer more hardships than the landlords.
A few weeks ago, an appeal bench of S D Darne and A K Shah of the small causes court confirmed a 2010 eviction order. The bench held that the landlords-Clarence Fernandes, Ralph Fernandes and four other brothers, two of whom died since the suit was originally filed-had made out a case of their bona fide requirement and to recover the tenanted 850 sq ft flat in the three-storey building that their father built. The Fernandes family had launched the "lawful attempts" to get back their ancestral premises in 1969, but their victory may not translate into a recovery of premises just yet.
In November 2010, the small causes trial judge passed an eviction decree against the tenants occupying a first-floor flat in Charlesville House in Bandra (W). The tenants- widow of the original tenant, Yasmin Badshah, her son Shahid Badshah and daughter-in-law Tasreen Khan-sought a stay. The judges granted a two-month stay on the eviction so that the tenants could challenge the order in the Bombay high court.
The landlords and other members of their family, through their lawyers Divyakant Mehta and MP Vashi, argued that they needed the flat so that the brothers could stay close to their mother.
The Bombay Rent Act allows a landlord to claim recovery for his genuine need.
In this case, the landlords got part reprieve in 1975. In 1976, the tenants went in appeal and lost. The matter went to HC in 1988 and both sides agreed to go for a re-trial before the small causes court. The battle started afresh and ended in 2011 with the court ruling in the landlords' favour. The tenants argued that they couldn't find alternative accommodation, adding that the landlords were rich and could afford to live elsewhere.
Holding that evidence during trial showed that Shahid and his wife were persons of "good means and financial resources and could easily get premises of their choice, at least on rent", the judges said the tenants, if evicted, would not suffer more hardships than the landlords.
The fact that the landlord is affluent is of little consequence if he proves, as was done in this case, that his need for the premises is genuine, said the court. "Only because a landlord is rich, a decree of recovery cannot be refused,"
Namaskar. Pl. guide.
My one of the tenant having income above Rs 50000/- per month was not
paying meager rent of Rs. 40/- p.m. since 2006. Yesterday due to one
of my blogs he has come to pay the rent. Am I supposed to collect rent
with interest? As such I hv to pay heavy penalty and interest if I
delay any payment to electricity, water, mobile, MTNL, credit card
dept etc.. and has to face disconnection. Pl. advise.
paying meager rent of Rs. 40/- p.m. since 2006. Yesterday due to one
of my blogs he has come to pay the rent. Am I supposed to collect rent
with interest? As such I hv to pay heavy penalty and interest if I
delay any payment to electricity, water, mobile, MTNL, credit card
dept etc.. and has to face disconnection. Pl. advise.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
most points apply to residents of saburi too!!!
Alok Tholiya
Co-owner: Tholiya Bhavan
Marigold Hall,
Tholiya Bhavan, 10th Rd., Santa Cruz East,
Mumbai 400055
For notice of all in Tholiya Bhavan
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
To, All
respected residents of Tholiya Bhavan.
It is belittingling myself to issue these guidelines but due
to having experienced several intolerable behaviors of some residents I am
compelled to write this:
1. Staff
recruitment, retention, grooming and taking care is a mammoth job. All are
requested to not to give any personal work to my staff, need not involve them
in any talk and waste their precious time.
However they have been advised to rush and
help when incidence is life threatening or of severe calamity.
2. Still
if there is a situation that you need any help of my staff then pl. talk to Ms
Sandhya and she will decide / allow them to do the needful. In case you have a
work which you think Sandhya needs to help then you have to first talk to me
and only if I consent she will help you.
3. Whenever
two neighbors/ acquaints meet they are supposed to nod/ say hello hi, wish,
exchange pleasantries etc and not supposed to transact business/ raise
complaints on way. It is fine if we ignore each other if there is no warmth in
relationship. But no one has to stop me or my staff while going up and down for
any personal work / building issues/ common issues of residents. As already
informed earlier, all are required to be a formal and enlightened person and
seek prior appointment from my staff for meeting. You have to inform in writing
in brief points of discussion which you want to have. I have to take necessary
authority from others concerned be it neighbors, co-owners or family
members etc. before I indulge in any
discussion or give any reply or permission as I alone have no authority to act
on behalf of others.
4. All
requests for permissions/ special facility have to come in writing and
reasonable time will be taken to give reply as necessary authorization has to
be obtained by me from others concerned.
5. I
humbly submit that there attached is sanctity of all posts and position and
owner of a building also needs some due respect. No one can enter freely any
time, catch hold of owner on way, use foul language, dress improperly and visit
his/ her office / home, misuse extra facilities, behave rudely etc.. These all
create unnecessary ill feeling and we are unable to enjoy and build good
relations. Taking undue liberties unnecessary enmity. Where as we all can
behave as civilized, educated and enlightened neighbors and improve tenant
landlord relations. Everyone should take a call on this.
6. We
will be left with no option but to take refuge under law as provided if anyone
indulges in mischief/ misbehavior / act causing in any manner injury to our
name, personality, position, safety, status, rights etc. .
7. We
will no more be hesitant to take legal action as per rent control act, civil
act, and criminal act as necessary if situation requires so. But our first
choice will be to be cordial and respectful to all neighbors and expect same
feeling in reciprocation.
8. No
tenant has left building earlier too without getting fair market value so that
is protected then why spoil relations, avoid paying dues, use foul language etc
which gives nothing more and rather is a risky proposition to behave in
uncalled for manner.
By order….In favor of Notice board of Tholiya Bhavan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)