Raj Mal vs Prem Narain And Ors. on 19 March, 2004
Similar view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in Md. Ahmed Amolia and Others' case (supra), and thus this point is decided against the defendants.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.74 seconds)Chhuttan Lal Sarimal vs Sushil Mansukhani And Anr. on 28 May, 2004
Vasudeva Menon vs M/S. K.J.Plantation
In a decision reported in Md. Ahmed
Amolia and others v. Nirmal Chandra Roy and
others (AIR 1978 Calcutta 312) the Division
Bench of that court took the view that courts
have to look into the pleadings by the lessee and
that mere claim of rent does not amount to
conclusive proof of the intention of the lessor to
renew or revive or continue the lease or create a
Ex.FA.NOS.8, 12 & 13/2010 93
new lease or tenancy by holding over.
Anser Bi vs The Sherfunissa on 26 November, 2010
In AIR 1978 CALCUTTA 312 (MD.AHMED AMOLIA AND OTHERS ..vs.. NIRMAL CHANDRA ROY), it has been held as follows:
Sri Kayaroganaswamy Neelayadhatchi vs Nagapattinam Co-Operative on 12 March, 2012
50.Mere continuance in possession after determination of the term of the lease does not create a tenancy by Holding Over. The Lease must also prove that the Lessor accepted the rent or otherwise assented to the Lessee's continuance in possession as per Mohamed Ahmed Amohi v. Nirmal Chandra Roy, AIR 1978 Cal 312.
Also At vs Anil Kumar Mittal S/O Sh. V.P. Mittal on 25 September, 2012
38. Next the plaintiff has contended the defendant was
inducted as a tenant in the suit property except one store room which
was afterwards illegally occupied by the defendant. This fact was denied
by the defendant. However at any whether the defendant was inducted as
a tenant in respect of that store room also or he subsequently occupied it
the resuklt is the same. Even if the defendant subsequently occupied the
same he is to be regarded as a tenant in respect of the said store room
also in view of the the provisions of section 108(d) of the Transfer of
Civil Suit no: 265/12 Page No: 14/23
Property Act. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Md.
Ahmed Amolia vs Nirmal Chandra Roy reported as AIR 1978
Calcutta 312 (DB) in this respect.
Sh. Girish Kumar S/O Sh. Harish Chander vs M/S. Sapna Narang D/O Sh. N. Narang on 10 September, 2012
52. The correctness of the above principle of law is not disputed: but it is
contended on behalf of the appellants that the learned Judges in that case
did not give any reason but stated that the law on the point is 'well
settled'. In my view, the learned Judges correctly laid down the
principles of law in that case.
Sultan And Ors. vs Ganesh And Ors. on 7 February, 1986
In Mohd. Ahmed Amoliva v. Nirmal Chand Rai and Ors. AIR 1978 Cal., it has been held that when a tenant encroaches on the land outside his tenancy, but belonging to his landlord, he cannot acquire absolute title there to by adverse possession, but obtain only that right of tenancy under his landlord.
Sultan And Ors. vs Ganesh And Ors. on 7 February, 1986
In Mohd. Ahmed Amoliva v. Nirmal Chanda Rai and Ors. , it has been held that when a tenant encroaches on the land outside his tenancy, but belonging to his landlord, he cannot acquire absolute title thereto by adverse possession, but obtains only that right of tenancy under his landlord.
Syed Nazmuddin vs N.S. Krishna Murthy on 8 January, 1998
8. Thus it has to be held by a reading of Section 108(d) and on the strength of the decisions referred to above. "There is a presumption that whenever a lessee or a tenant encroaches upon the adjacent area to his leased or tenanted premises, then such encroached area or premises or property, also gets included as the 'Leased or Tenanted' property and the tenant is obliged to protect the landlord's rights in respect of the encroached area also, and deliver up unto the landlord at the end of tenancy the said encroached area alongwith the original tenanted or leased area".