citedby: 149682

Abl International Limited vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 14 December, 2018

The Learned Judge also relied on Smt Phool Rani Trivedi & Anr. Vs. Sheel Chandra reported in AIR 2004 Delhi 424 where a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that where a lease for a fixed period is determined by efflux of time without the lease deed having a renewal clause, a plea of holding over is not open for the tenant.

Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M Bhattacharya - Full Document

Abl International Ltd vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 25 September, 2014

In Smt. Phool Rani Trivedi & Anr. (supra) the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is of the view that, where a lease is for a fixed period and where such lease is determined by efflux of time with the lease deed not containing any renewal clause, a plea of holding over is not open for the tenant. The rent deposited by the tenant was not found to be accepted as rent and damages for occupation of the premises.

Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - D Basak - Full Document

Maj. Gen Anil Mohan Chaturvedi & Ors vs M/S. Tecon Projects Pvt. Ltd on 27 February, 2013

27 The defendant has submitted that tenancy stood extended upto January, 2010 by the consent of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are stated to be accepting the increased rent of 10% increase over the last paid rent. Defendant has submitted that the exercise the option for extension of the lease deed for a further period of three years on 16.010.2008 by UPC and also in a personal meeting with plaintiff no.1in third week of October. It is further stated that the rent would be Rs.34,600/ and the total rent will be Rs.69,500/ per month which lastly has been increased to Rs.76,133/ per month. Defendant has submitted that the Contd....P..12 of 25 : 13 : plaintiffs have been accepting the enhanced rent after deduction of TDS. 28 It was held in the matter of Phool Rani Trivedi Vs. Sheel Chandra, 2004 Rajdhani Law Reporter 467 that mere payment of rent after termination of tenancy does not result in holding over u/s 116 of Transfer of Property Act nor acceptance of rent amounts to waiver. Therefore, acceptance of enhanced rent by the plaintiffs in the present matter does not amount to extension or continuance of tenancy in favour of the defendant. Further parties by their agreement, presuming if there was any, can not supersede the statutory provisions. The plaintiffs have denied the fact of alleged extension of tenancy. Further a perusal of Ex. DW 1/2, Ex. DW 1/3 and Ex. DW 1/4 i.e. agreement for housekeeping and maintenance, agreement for fittings, furniture and fixtures and agreement for letting out garage space for car parking and servant quarter reveals that these exhibits have been signed on behalf of defendant alone and not by the plaintiffs. Thus these agreements were never executed between the parties. Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act specifically provides that lease of immovable property for any terms exceeding one year can be made only be a registered instrument. Thus, in absence of registration, the contention of the defendant is untenable and dismissed. Accordingly issue no.2 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff and the present suit is not premature. Issue no.3 : Whether the suit is barred by provisions of resjudicata?

Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Col. V.P. Mohan vs Suresh Batra on 24 April, 2007

In the case of PHOOL RANI vs SHEEL CHANDRA, 2004 RAJDHANI LAW REPORTER 467 a division bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that once the tenancy expires by efflux of time, mere payment of rent thereafter does not result in holding over under Section 116, Transfer of Property Act.

Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Kiran Suneja vs M/S. Equipment Conductors on 31 May, 2007

42. Resultantly the present appeal stands allowed. It is held 36 Of 37 37 that plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of the suit flat bearing No. 605, Eros Apartments, 56, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019 and the defendant would handover the possession thereof within one month failing which, as observed in the case of Phool Rani (Supra), defendant would be liable to pay damages/mesne profits to the plaintiff @ Rs.20,000/- per month. Plaintiff would also be entitled to grant of costs throughout. Findings of learned trial Court on issue nos. 1,3,8 & 9 recorded in the impugned judgment, being erroneous are therefore set aside whereas its findings on other issues mentioned above stand affirmed. The aforesaid reply and objection petition of the defendant therefore stand dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.

Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Kanta Devi vs The Chief Post Master on 8 May, 2012

iii). Phool Rani Trivedi Vs. Sh. Sheel Chjandra, 2004 Rajdhani Law Reporter 467 citing that if a tenant of a lease deed of a fixed duration does not quit on expiry then tenancy gets terminated by efflux of time.

Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kusum Nagia vs . Sanjay Gupta on 23 November, 2012

15 Defendant has submitted that plaintiff has accepted the rent after expiry of period of tenancy and accordingly the tenancy continuous. However, there is no force in the said submission also as it has been held in various judgments that mere acceptance of rent by the landlord does not extend or continue the tenancy. Thus acceptance of rent by the plaintiff after expiry of period of tenancy does not amount to continuous of tenancy. It was held in the matter of Phool Rani Trivedi Vs. Sh. Sheel Chandra, 2004 Rajdhani Law Reporter 467 that if tenant of lease deed of three years does not quit on expiry, then tenancy gets terminated by efflux of time. Mere payment of rent thereafter does not result in holding over u/s 116 nor acceptance of rent amounts to waiver.