1981 JTR(SC) 373
1981 AIR(SC) 1956 ; 1981 RLR 688 ; 1981 4 SCC 143 ; 1981 KHC 888
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.D. KOSHAL AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.
Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar and another, Petitioners
Versus
Waman Shripad Mage (since dead) through LRs. Respondents.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5086 of 1981, D/-10-8-1981.
Bombay Rent Act – Tenant – Transfer of Tenancy - Main contention, however, is that a dissenting note has been struck by a Bench of three Judges in Damadilal v. Parashram, (1976) Supp SCR 645 – Held, case first noted is a four Judge decision and is binding on a Bench of three Judges. No question any dissent such as has been referred to by Mr. Lalit, therefore, arises. Jai Singhs case (supra) holds the field till today in so far as the Bombay Rent Act is concerned and we are bound by it - Petition dismissed.
Bombay Rent Act – Tenant – Transfer of Tenancy - Main contention, however, is that a dissenting note has been struck by a Bench of three Judges in Damadilal v. Parashram, (1976) Supp SCR 645 – Held, case first noted is a four Judge decision and is binding on a Bench of three Judges. No question any dissent such as has been referred to by Mr. Lalit, therefore, arises. Jai Singhs case (supra) holds the field till today in so far as the Bombay Rent Act is concerned and we are bound by it - Petition dismissed.
Judgment
KOSHAL, J.:- The matter is concluded by the dictum of four Judges in Jai Singh Murari v. Sovani (P) Ltd., AIR 1973 SC 772, 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 contraverted 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, (1976) Supp SCR 645. 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 any dissent such as has been referred to by Mr. Lalit, therefore, arises. Jai Singhs 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.
Petition dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1981 SC 1956