Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 2011) 11 scc 275 in Pradeep Khanna vs Renu Khetarpal on 10 April, 2015Matching Fragments
10. On 24th February, 2015, the appellant appeared in person at the time of hearing and sought permission that his daughter be permitted to make submissions which was allowed. The first objection raised at the time of the hearing was that the respondent has placed forged rent agreement on record. It was next urged that the legal notice dated 26th October, 2013 is not valid because the tenancy has been terminated due to non-payment of the rent whereas the appellant has spent Rs.7 lakh on the repair work and after adjusting the same, the rent stands paid upto December, 2014. It was further submitted that the notice of termination was not valid under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellant referred to and relied upon Vijay Syal v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 401, T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, 1978 SCR (1) 742, K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275, Bhuneshwar Prasad v. United Commercial Bank (2000) 7 SCC 232, Manish v. Shanti Devi, 2014 (4) RLW 2967(Raj) and State Bank of India v. Midland Industries AIR 1988 Delhi 153.