LAW FOR ALL

Section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - subsequent events - Tenancy Rights - heritable - Original Tenant executed a will infavour of wife and 5 sons - probated infavour of mother - mother executed will infavour of one of the son Dinshaw - not probated - B.M.C. issued eviction orders against all legal heirs - suit was filed - suit was decreed - Dinshaw and BMC entered in to exchange deed in lieu of surrender of some extent to BMC, BMC agreed to extend the period of lease for 60 years - other legal heirs filed suit against this exchange terms and also filed a suit from dispossessing from the suit property and also sought interim injunction order restraining from dispossession with his construction works which was modified by High court for five flats with out creating any third party encumbrances - City Civil court dismissed the both suits where as High court allowed both appeals and held that the plaintiffs (respondents herein) were joint tenants with original defendant No.2 (appellant herein); consequently, the surrender of tenancy by defendant No.2 in favour of BMC was illegal and the transfer of tenancy by BMC in the name of defendant No.2 was incorrect, void and not binding upon the plaintiffs -However, the High Court directed appellants to handover possession of the five flats to respondent Nos.1 to 5.taking into consideration of subsequent - Apex court held that As on today the remaining portion of Irani Wadi is acquired by the BMC and they want to develop it. The other portion is allotted to defendant No. 2 on lease. Considering, therefore, all the rights of the plaintiffs i.e. 6/15th right in the suit property and the right of the defendant No. 2, allotting five flats to the plaintiffs, rest of the 10 flats of the building are with the defendant No. 2 and/or his legal heirs, and the corporation developing the remaining property, is the only option left. Once the remaining portion of Irani Wadi is acquired by the corporation, the plaintiff will have to vacate the same today or tomorrow. Therefore in these circumstances the order that follows is the only order that will be just and proper in my humble opinion.” and dismissed the appeals confirming the High court orders = Gaiv Dinshaw Irani & Ors. .… Appellants Vs. Tehmtan Irani & Ors. ....Respondents= 2014 ( April.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41496