VASANTKUMAR RADHAKISAN VORA versus BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 825 · Decided: 21-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

V ASANTKUMAR RADHAKISAN VORA 
v. 
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY 
AUGUST 21, 1990 
[K.N. SAIKIA AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
• .'!... 
"'" ' 
,... ..., 
Presidency Small Cause Court" Act, 1882 as amended by the 
' 
Maharashtra Amendment Act 1963, Amendment Act 1976 and Amend-
~ 
ment Act, 1984. Section 42A, 46(2) and 47-Tenancy terminated in 
..,.- terms of covenant of lease by notice under Transfer of Property Act, 
1882-Whether ejectment can be sought under Section 41 of Bombay 
Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. 
Major Port Trusts Act, 1963: Section 29( l)(a) & (b) read with 
Section 133(2A)-Application to port of Bombay-Effect of repeal of 
~ the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879-Quit notice concerning vested im-
movable property-Whether ejectment suit can be filed. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Sections 106, 109 and 1 ll(h) quit 
notice issued by assistant estate manager of Bombay Port Trust-Filing 
of ejectment suit by Port Trust Board-Whether maintainable. 
General Clauses Act, 1897: Sections 6 and 17-Whether there is 
-, any inconsistency between the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and the 
Bombay Port Trust Act 1879-0peration, efficacy and effectiveness of 
quit notice issued by assistant estate manager under the State Act. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 115-Promissory estoppel-
·~~octrine of-Applicability of plea against government and municipal 
body-Actions of State in exercise of legislative or statutory powers-
Public authorities acting beyond scope of authority-Inapplicability of 
•doctrine-Doctrine of executive necessity-Quit notice issued by 
Assistant Estate Manager-Plea of promissory estoppel by tenant-
Validity of. 
The respondent a statutory body corporate constituted under the 
Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879-a 'State Act' who had appointed an 
Assistant Estate Manager as their power of attorney holder to lease out 
I.its property from time to time, terminate the leases and to lay action for 
~jectment, etc.; leased out the suit property to the appellant. 
825 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I 
A 
B 
c 
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 
The appellant was served with a notice under Section 106 read 
with Section 11 l(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 terminatin~ 
the tenancy in terms of the covenants of lease and directing delivery of 
possession of the demised property giving one month's time from 22nd 
January 1975. The notice was served on the tenants on January 28, 
1975 and became effective from 28th February, 1975. 
In the meanwhile, the Major Port Trust Act, 1963,-a 'Central 
Act' was made applicable to the Bombay Port Trust by operation of _ ___. 
Section 133(2A) thereof with effect from February 1, 1975. 
-~ 
After the expiry of one month from the suit notice an ejectment 
application was filed under Section 41 of the Bombay Presidency Small 
Cause Courts Act, 1882 as amended under the Maharashtra 1963 
Amendment Act, and a direction was sought for delivery of possession. 
Aller the Maharashtra Amendment Act 19 of 1976 came into force suits 
were laid against the three other tenants of the demised property. 
D 
The respondent pleaded in the said suit that it was a successor-in-
interest of the Port Trust Board under the State Act, and was entitled to 
eject the tenants and to take possession of the demised portions. The 
appellant contended in his written statement that the suit was not main-
tainable since the State Act ceased to be operative with effect from 
February 1, 1975, the quit notice issued under Section 106 read with 
E 
Section 11 l(h) of the Transfer of Property Act became ineffective and " 
without determining the tenancy afresh the suit was not validly laid. It 
was further submitted that the respondent had promised that on deposit 
of a certain amount which_ the appellant-tenant did, he would be given 
to lease a portion in the reconstructed building, and consequently the-A .
respondent was estopped by promissory estoppel to have the tenae'f -
· 
F 
ejected. 
One suit was dismissed on the ground that the tenancy was not 
duly determined as per law, while the other suits were decreed. 
No appellate forum had been prescribed under the Maharashtra 
G 
Amendment Act of 1963 but a substantive suit on the original side 
provided was available, but such a right to appeal was incorporated by 
the Maharashtra Amendment Act, 19 of 1976. 
• 
) 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court under Arti-
cles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the other tenants

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.