{"id":110420,"date":"1953-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1953-12-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953"},"modified":"2017-09-09T01:55:26","modified_gmt":"2017-09-08T20:25:26","slug":"baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953","title":{"rendered":"Baburao Shantaram More vs The Bombay Housing Board &#8230; on 18 December, 1953"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Baburao Shantaram More vs The Bombay Housing Board &#8230; on 18 December, 1953<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR  153, \t\t  1954 SCR  572<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S R Das<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam, Jagannadhadas, B.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBABURAO SHANTARAM MORE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE BOMBAY HOUSING BOARD ANDANOTHER.,\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n18\/12\/1953\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nHASAN, GHULAM\nJAGANNADHADAS, B.\n\nCITATION:\n 1954 AIR  153\t\t  1954 SCR  572\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1967 SC1581\t (8,19,21)\n MV\t    1974 SC2009\t (3,23)\n D\t    1985 SC 270\t (6,10)\n E&amp;F\t    1989 SC1642\t (15)\n\n\nACT:\n Constitution of India, art. 14-Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodg-\n ing House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947), s.  4-\n Bombay Housing Board (Amendment) Act (Bombay Act XI of 1951)\n inserting  new s. 3-A in Bombay Housing Board Act (Act\t LXIX\n of 1948) -Whether ultra vires the Constitution.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nHeld,  that neither s. 4 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and  Lodging\nHouse Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947) nor the new\ns  3-A\tinserted in Bombay Housing Board Act, (Act  LXIX  of\n1948@  by the Amending Act (Bombay Act XI of 1951) is  ultra\nvires art. 14 of the Constitution.\nThe  facts  and\t arguments are sufficiently  stated  in\t the\nJudgment.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PETITION No. 271 of 1952 Petition\t for<br \/>\nspecial leave to appeal No. 108 of 1952.\n<\/p>\n<p>Petition  under article 32 of the Constitution and  petition<br \/>\nfor special leave against the Judgment and Order stated\t the<br \/>\n7th  July, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature  at  Bombay<br \/>\n(Chagla\t C.  J.\t and Gajendragadkar J.)\t in  Civil  Revision<br \/>\nApplication No. 567 of 1952.\n<\/p>\n<p>J.   B. Dadachanji for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>M.   C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and<br \/>\nC.   K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (Porus<br \/>\nA.   Mehta, with them) for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>1953.  December 18.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered<br \/>\nby DAs J,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">573<\/span><br \/>\nDAS  J.-The  petitioner before us is in\t occupation  of\t two<br \/>\nrooms  Nos. 387 and 388 in Barrack No. T-93 in Sion  Dharavi<br \/>\nCamp  in  Greater Bombay.  The camp  Consisting\t of  several<br \/>\ntenements  was constructed and&#8217; owned by the  Government  of<br \/>\nIndia during the last world war for the use of the military.<br \/>\nIn  1948  the Government of Bombay now\trepresented  by\t the<br \/>\nState  of  Bombay  purchased  the  camp\t and  entrusted\t the<br \/>\nmanagement thereof to the Bombay Provincial Housing Board&#8211;a<br \/>\nbody  constituted by a Government Resolution.  In  the\tsame<br \/>\nyear  the  Bombay  Housing  Board,  the\t respondent  No.   4<br \/>\n(hereinafter  referred to as the Board), was established  by<br \/>\nthe Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 (Act No. LXIX of 1948) as<br \/>\na  body corporate, competent to acquire and  hold  property.<br \/>\nThe  purposes of the Act included the management and use  of<br \/>\nlands  and  buildings belonging to or vested in\t the  Board.<br \/>\nThe  Board  is\tauthorised  to\tframe  and  execute  housing<br \/>\nschemes.  Undersection3(3)the Board.is to be deemed to be  a<br \/>\nlocal  authority for the purposes of that Act and  the\tLand<br \/>\nAcquisition  (Bombay  Amendment)  Act,\t1948.\tSection\t  54<br \/>\n(3)provides   that  all\t assets\t entrusted  to\tthe   Bombay<br \/>\nProvincial  Housing Board shall upon a declaration  made  by<br \/>\nthe  Government of Bombay vest in the Board.  On  1st  June,<br \/>\n1949  the  Government of Bombay having\tmade  the  necessary<br \/>\ndeclaration the Sion Dharavi Camp vested,-in the Board.<br \/>\nIt appears that before the camp was made over to the  Bombay<br \/>\nProvincial  Housing  Board  certain  persons  including\t the<br \/>\npetitioner  had&#8217;  without any authority or  title,  occupied<br \/>\nportions  of  the camp.\t An arrangement was  made  that\t the<br \/>\npetitioner   and  the  other  persons  who  had\t gone\tinto<br \/>\noccupation  of portions of the camp would pay such  rent  as<br \/>\nwould be fixed by the Government of Bombay.  The  Government<br \/>\nof Bombay undertook to carry out certain repairs to the camp<br \/>\nwith   the  object  of\treconditioning\tthe   same,and\t the<br \/>\npetitioner  and others also agreed to pay such rent  as\t the<br \/>\nGovernt\t ment  would then fix.\tThe  petitioner\t and  others<br \/>\nsigned\ta letter embodying the terms of the agreement.\t The<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s rent was originally fixed at Rs. 14 per  month.<br \/>\nThe Government Of Bombay then reconditioned<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">574<\/span><br \/>\nthe structures at considerable cost and the revised rent  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of the rooms in the occupation of  the\t ,petitioner<br \/>\nworked out at Rs. 56-8 per month.\n<\/p>\n<p>In or about February, 1950, the Board served a notice on the<br \/>\npetitioner calling upon him to quit and vacate the rooms  in<br \/>\nhis occupation at the end of March, 1950.  An intimation was<br \/>\nalso  given by that notice that if the petitioner agreed  to<br \/>\npay the revised, rent of Rs. 56-8 per month the Board  would<br \/>\nwaive the notice to quit.  The petitioner not having  agreed<br \/>\nto  pay the revised rent the Board took proceedings  against<br \/>\nthe  petitioner\t in the Court of Small Causes at  Bombay  to<br \/>\nrecover\t possession of the premises in his occupation.\t The<br \/>\npetitioner took the plea, inter alia, that he was  protected<br \/>\nby  the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates  Control<br \/>\nAct,  1947  (Act LVII of 1947) popularly called\t the  Bombay<br \/>\nRent  Act.  The Board, however, contended that its  premises<br \/>\nwere  exempted from the operation of the Bombay Rent Act  by<br \/>\nvirtue of section 4 of that Act which runs as follows:-<br \/>\n&#8221; This Act shall not apply to any premises belonging to\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  or\ta local authority or apply  as\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nGovernment to any tenancy or other like relationship created<br \/>\nby a grant from the Government in respect of premises  taken<br \/>\non lease or requisitioned by the Government; , but it  shall<br \/>\napply in respect of premises taken on lease or in respect of<br \/>\npremises let to the Government or a local authority.&#8221;<br \/>\nThe  petitioner&#8217;s  rejoinder was that the Board\t was  not  a<br \/>\nlocal authority and could not, therefore, claim the  benefit<br \/>\nof   section   4   and\tfurther\t that\tthat   section\t was<br \/>\nunconstitutional  in  that  it offended\t against  the  equal<br \/>\nprotection clause of the Constitution.\tDuring the  pendency<br \/>\nof  the proceedings in the Court of Small Causes the  Bombay<br \/>\nHousing\t Board Act was amended by the Bombay  Housing  Board<br \/>\n(Amendment)  Act  (Act XI of 1951).  Section 3-A  which\t was<br \/>\nadded by the amending Act is in the words following:-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    575<\/span><\/p>\n<p>&#8220;3-A.  For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared\tthat<br \/>\nthe  Bombay Rents, Hotel &amp; Lodging House Rates Control\tAct,<br \/>\n1947,-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)shall not apply nor shall be deemed to have ever  applied<br \/>\nto any land or building belonging to or vesting in the Board<br \/>\nunder or for the purposes of this Act;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)shall not apply nor shall be deemed to have ever  applied<br \/>\nas  against  the  Board\t to  any  tenancies  or\t other\tlike<br \/>\nrelationship created by the Board in respect of such land or<br \/>\nbuilding;\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)but\tshall  apply  to any land or  building\tlet  to\t the<br \/>\nBoard.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  trial court held that the Board was a  local  authority<br \/>\nwithin\tthe meaning of section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act\t and<br \/>\nthat  that  section  did not contravene\t the  provisions  of<br \/>\narticle\t 14 of the Constitution and accordingly on the\t14th<br \/>\nFebruary,  1952, passed an order for delivery of  possession<br \/>\nof the two rooms to the Board but directed that the  warrant<br \/>\nfor  possession\t should not be issued until  the  15th\tMay,<br \/>\n1952.  The petitioner moved the High Court in revision.\t The<br \/>\nHigh  Court  found that it was difficult to  hold  that\t the<br \/>\nBoard  was  a  local authority but  held  that\tsection\t 3-A\n<\/p>\n<p>-introduced by the amending Act had retrospectively extended<br \/>\nthe exemption contained in section 4 of the Bombay Rent\t Act<br \/>\nto  the Board.\tThe High Court further held that  there\t had<br \/>\nbeen  no  infraction of the petitioner&#8217;s  fundamental  right<br \/>\nunder article 14 and dismissed the application for revision.<br \/>\nThe petitioner applied to the Bombay High Court for leave to<br \/>\nappeal to this court but that application was rejected.\t The<br \/>\npetitioner  has now applied before us for special leave,  to<br \/>\nappeal\tagainst the order of the High Court.  He  &#8220;has\talso<br \/>\nmade   a  substantive  application  under  article  32\t for<br \/>\nenforcement   of   his\tfundamental  rights.\tBoth   these<br \/>\napplications have been posted together before us for hearing<br \/>\nand disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>The only point-urged before us by learned counsel  appearing<br \/>\nfor the petitioner is that the said section<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">576<\/span><br \/>\n3-A which exempts lands or buildings belonging to or  vested<br \/>\nin  the\t Board from the operation of the  ,Bombay  Rent\t Act<br \/>\noffends\t  against  the\tequal  protection  clause   of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution.\tHe  points  out that  there  are  in  Bombay<br \/>\nnumerous  Co-operative Housing Societies incorporated  under<br \/>\nthe Co-operative Societies Act which are similarly  situated<br \/>\nand whose object, is also to solve housing problem but their<br \/>\nlands and buildings are not exempted from the&#8217; operation  of<br \/>\nthe  Bombay Rent Act.  The result is that while the  tenants<br \/>\nof those Co-operative Housing Societies are fully  protected<br \/>\nby  the\t Bombay\t Rent Act against enhancement  of  rent\t and<br \/>\nejectment,  the\t tenants  of the Board\tare,  by  virtue  of<br \/>\nsection\t 3-A, denied the protection of the Bombay Rent\tAct.<br \/>\nThe Co-operative Societies Act does not in terms bring about<br \/>\nany  relationship  of  landlord and  tenant  between  a\t Co-<br \/>\noperative  Housing Society incorporated under that  Act\t and<br \/>\nits members.  &#8216;there is nothing in that Act to indicate that<br \/>\nany  of\t the  members of any  of  the  Co-operative  Housing<br \/>\nSocieties  is a tenant of such society.\t No lease  or  other<br \/>\ndocument has been produced in support of the suggestion that<br \/>\nthe  Cooperative Housing Societies have any tenant  at\tall.<br \/>\nFurther, though these Co-operative Housing Societies are  no<br \/>\ndoubt  incorporated  bodies,  they  nevertheless  may\tearn<br \/>\nprofits which may be distributed amongst their members.\t The<br \/>\nBoard,\ton the other hand, is an incorporated  body  brought<br \/>\ninto existence for the purpose of framing housing schemes to<br \/>\nsolve  the  problem of acute shortage  of  accommodation  in<br \/>\nBombay.\t  There\t are  no  shareholders\tinterested  in\t the<br \/>\ndistribution of any profit.  It is under the control of\t the<br \/>\nGovernment and acts under the orders of the Government.\t  In<br \/>\neffect,\t it  is a Government sponsored body not\t having\t any<br \/>\nprofit making motive.  No material has been placed before us<br \/>\nwhich may even remotely be regarded as suggesting, much less<br \/>\nproving,  that the Co-operative Housing Societies  or  their<br \/>\n&#8216;members  stand similarly situated vis-a-vis the  Board\t and<br \/>\nits  tenants.  The petitioner, therefore, cannot sustain  Os<br \/>\ncomplaint of discrimination on this ground. &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">577<\/span><\/p>\n<p> Learned  counsel  for\tthe petitioner then  said  that\t the<br \/>\neffect\tof  section  3-A is to extend  the  benefit  of\t the<br \/>\nexemption  of section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act to the  Board<br \/>\nwhich,\tin other words, implies that the name of  the  Board<br \/>\nhas been added in section 4 after the local authority.\t The<br \/>\ncontention  is\tthat  section 4\t discriminates\tagainst\t the<br \/>\ntenants\t of  properties belonging to the  Government,  local<br \/>\nauthority or the Board in that these tenants are denied\t the<br \/>\nbenefits  of the Bombay Rent Act which are available to\t all<br \/>\nother  tenants\tin Bombay.  There can be no  question  that,<br \/>\nthis  exemption is given by section 4 to certain classes  of<br \/>\ntenants and this classification is based on an\tintelligible<br \/>\ndifferentia which distinguishes them from other tenants\t and<br \/>\nthis  differentia  has\ta rational relation  to\t the  object<br \/>\nsought to be achieved by the Act.  It is the business of the<br \/>\nGovernment  to solve the accommodation problem\tand  satisfy<br \/>\nthe  public need of housing accommodation.  It was  for\t the<br \/>\npurpose\t of  achieving\tthis  object  that  the\t Board\t was<br \/>\nincorporated and established.  It is not to be expected that<br \/>\nthe  Government\t or local authority or the Board,  would  be<br \/>\nactuated  by any profit making mot as to unduly enhance\t the<br \/>\nrents or eject the tenants from their respective  properties<br \/>\nas  private  Ian are or are likely to  be.   Therefore,\t the<br \/>\ntenants\t Government or local authority or the Board are\t not<br \/>\nin  need  of  such  protection as  the\ttenants\t of  private<br \/>\nlandlords  are and this circumstance is a cogent  basis\t for<br \/>\ndifferentiation.   The\ttwo classes of tenants are  not,  by<br \/>\nforce  of circumstances placed on an equal footing  and\t the<br \/>\ntenants\t of the Government or local authority or  the  Board<br \/>\ncannot, therefore, complain of any denial of equality before<br \/>\nthe law or of equal protection of the law.  There is here no<br \/>\nreal  discrimination, for the two classes are not  similarly<br \/>\nsituated.   Neither  section 4 of the Bombay  Rent  Act\t nor<br \/>\nsection&#8217;s   3-A\t of  the  Bombay  Housing  Board  Act\tcan,<br \/>\ntherefore,  be challenged as unconstitutional on the  ground<br \/>\nof contravention of article 14 of the Constitution.<br \/>\nNo other point has been urged before us,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">578<\/span><br \/>\nWe  dismiss both the applications.  The petitioner must\t pay<br \/>\none set of costs of the application under article 32.<br \/>\nPetition8  dismissed.\tAgent for the  petitioner:  Rajinder<br \/>\nNarain.\t Agent for the respondents: G. H. Rajadhyaksha.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Baburao Shantaram More vs The Bombay Housing Board &#8230; on 18 December, 1953 Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 153, 1954 SCR 572 Author: S R Das Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam, Jagannadhadas, B. PETITIONER: BABURAO SHANTARAM MORE Vs. RESPONDENT: THE BOMBAY HOUSING BOARD ANDANOTHER., DATE [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-110420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Baburao Shantaram More vs The Bombay Housing Board ... on 18 December, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baburao Shantaram More vs The Bombay Housing Board ... on 18 December, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1953-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-08T20:25:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baburao Shantaram More vs The Bombay Housing Board &#8230; on 18 December, 1953\",\"datePublished\":\"1953-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-08T20:25:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953\"},\"wordCount\":1897,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953\",\"name\":\"Baburao Shantaram More vs The Bombay Housing Board ... on 18 December, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1953-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-08T20:25:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baburao Shantaram More vs The Bombay Housing Board &#8230; on 18 December, 1953\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Baburao Shantaram More vs The Bombay Housing Board ... on 18 December, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baburao Shantaram More vs The Bombay Housing Board ... on 18 December, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1953-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-08T20:25:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baburao Shantaram More vs The Bombay Housing Board &#8230; on 18 December, 1953","datePublished":"1953-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-08T20:25:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953"},"wordCount":1897,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953","name":"Baburao Shantaram More vs The Bombay Housing Board ... on 18 December, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1953-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-08T20:25:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-shantaram-more-vs-the-bombay-housing-board-on-18-december-1953#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baburao Shantaram More vs The Bombay Housing Board &#8230; on 18 December, 1953"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110420","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}