Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.60 seconds)
Documents citing Chandra Nath Mukherjee vs Chulai Pashi And Anr. on 1 December, 1958

Shri Hans Raj vs Shri Raghubir Singh & Ors on 9 January, 2020

27. As per law the only requirement to oust the jurisdiction of the tribunal under the DRC Act is to give a notice by the landlord to the tenant disclosing his intention to terminate the lease, per Section 111 (g) read with Section 114A of the Transfer of the Property Act,1882. Such a notice dated 11.04.1988 has, admittedly, been given by the landlord in RFA No.633/2014 Page 10 of 13 this case. The citations supporting my this view are numerous viz. Namdeo Lokman Lodhi vs. Narmadabai and Others AIR 1953 SC 228; Raghupati Roy and Others vs. Debu Karmakar and Others AIR 1956 Calcutta 79; Abdul Sattar Mian vs. Kailash Prasad AIR 1966 Patna 93; Chandra Nath Mukherjee vs. Chulai Pashi and Another AIR 1960 Calcutta 40; Ramniranjan Prasad Tulshyan and Others vs. Gajadhar Prasad and Others AIR 1960 Patna 525; Somti Parkash Lakshmi Narain Singh vs. Natha Baga and Another AIR 1964 Punjab 449; Devasahayam (Dead) by Lrs. vs. P.Savithramma and Others (2005) 7 SCC 653. I need not repeat the law laid in these judgments, hence, contention a) is accordingly answered and is rejected.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - Y Khanna - Full Document

Ranumal vs Municipal Council, Ajmer on 16 August, 1971

In Chandra Nath v. Chulai Pashi, AIR 1960 Cal 40 it was held that when there is a forfeiture, that is, when the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach thereof the lessor may re-enter the lessor must give a notice in writing of his intention to determine the lease as provided in Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. It was further observed that the statutory requirement of notice specified in Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be waived by contract and must prevail, and since there was no such notice served by the plaintiff, the latter was held not entitled to treat the lease as determined.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mool Chand And Anr. vs Ishwarlal And Anr. on 27 February, 1973

7-A. In the second place, learned counsel contended that the provisions of Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 1'3 of the Act were almost a reproduction of the provisions of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. It was therefore, incumbent on the landlords to have issued notice of forfeiture of the tenancy on the ground of disclaimer of landlord's title. In this behalf learned counsel pointed out that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act being in addition to the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (vide Section 28 thereof) they were required to be complied with even if for arguments' sake it were accepted that the tenant was not entitled to the protection under Section 13 of the Act. Learned counsel placed reliance on a number of cases, such as, Ramgopal v. Mangla, ILR (1966) 16 Raj 572; Ranumal v. Municipal Council, Aimer, AIR 1972 Raj 55: State v. S.S. Devi, AIR 1972 Pat 200; Laxmi S. & W. Mills Ltd. v. Mohammed Ibrahim, AIR 1958 Cal 428; Chandra Nath v. Chulai Pashi, AIR 1960 Cal 40 and Raman Nair v. Moriyamma, AIR 1920 Mad 256.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Santanu Chaudhuri vs Subir Ghosh on 25 August, 2005

In the case of Chandra Nath Mukherjee (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court held that a registered Kobala signed by lessee alone is invalid as a lease but possession under such lease and acceptance of rent by landlord constituted a lease by operation of law. The said decision, in our view, does not help the respondent who has taken a plea of part performance of contract.
Calcutta High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Bhaiya Ram Hargo Lal vs Mahavir Prasad Murari Lal Mahajan on 26 July, 1968

The ratio of the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Chandra Nath Mukherjee's case, AIR 1960 Cal 40 (Supra), goes against the tenant so far as the point before us is concerned. The basic principle which is relevant in this connection is that if a statutory provision itself provides that a person sought to be benefit by it can contract out of it, the protection granted by that provision can be waived by the person concerned, but if contracting out of the statutory protection is either expressly or impliedly prohibited, the protection of such a provision cannot be waived. It appears that the judgment of Sen, J. was obviously based on the above said principle, Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act contains the clause "in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary". That being so, contracting out of the protecting afforded by that provision itself. It cannot, therefore, in out opinion, be argued successfully that the protection granted by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be waived.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Yaduvanshi Realestate Pvt Ltd vs Luxmi Narain on 24 April, 2025

27. As per law the only requirement to oust the jurisdiction of the tribunal under the Delhi Rent Control Act Act is to give a notice by the landlord to the tenant disclosing his intention to terminate the lease, per Section 111 (g) read with Section 114A of the Transfer of the Property Act,1882. Such a notice dated 11.04.1988 has, admittedly, been given by the landlord in this case. The citations supporting my this view are numerous viz. Namdeo Lokman Lodhi vs. Narmadabai and Others AIR 1953 SC 228; Raghupati Roy and Others vs. Debu Karmakar and Others AIR 1956 Calcutta 79; Abdul Sattar Mian vs. Kailash Prasad AIR 1966 Patna 93; Chandra Nath Mukherjee vs. Chulai Pashi and Another AIR 1960 Calcutta 40; Ramniranjan Prasad Tulshyan and Others vs. Gajadhar Prasad and Others AIR 1960 Patna 525; Somti Parkash Lakshmi Narain Singh vs. Natha Baga and Another AIR 1964 Punjab 449; Devasahayam (Dead) by Lrs. vs. P.Savithramma and Others (2005) 7 SCC 653. I need not repeat the law laid in these judgments, hence, contention a) is accordingly answered and is rejected.
Delhi District Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sahiram Chowdhury vs Sm. Laxmi Devi Goel on 12 February, 1979

In support of this proposition he relied upon Chandra Nath Mukherjee v. Chulai Pashi , where a Kabuliat though registered was found to be unilaterally executed and thus invalid. The Court however held that since the defendants were let into possession and rents were received from them by the plaintiff, a lease came into existence by operation of Section 106 of the T. P. Act and the terms of Deed could be looked into and neither Section 49 of the Registration Act nor Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act would bar its admissibility. He contended that the defendant being admittedly in possession since November, 1973 there being no dispute as to the rate of rent payable and in fact such rent having been paid at least for 15 days the plaintiff's claim was sufficiently established.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Murid Khan And Ors. vs Usman Khan And Ors. on 11 January, 1962

The mutation recorded at the instance of a Patwari cannot constitute an agreement between the parties S. K. Sen J. of the Calcutta High Court has ruled in Chandra Nath Mukherjee v. Chulai Pashi AIR 1960 Cal 40, that "the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of property Act come into operation when there is some writing signed by the transferor and not when there is some writing signed by the transferee."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1