Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Hakim Ziaul Islam vs Mohd. Rafi on 15 December, 1970

General Auto Agencies vs Hazari Singh on 26 August, 1975

In Hakirn. Ziaul Islam v. Mohd. Rafi AIR 1971 All 302 I find that the notice indicated that the landlord wanted to terminate the tenancy immediately. This authority can help the appellant only if I hold that in the present case the counsel who had drafted the notice on behalf of the plaintiff indicated to the defendant the intention of his client to terminate the relationship of the landlord and the tenant immediately. The notice however, does not state that the tenancy was terminated forthwith. The expression 'hereby terminates' cannot be read to mean 'terminated forthwith'. The word 'hereby' means that the tenancy was terminated by that notice. The sentence when read as a whole makes it abundantly clear that the request was made by the landlord for the delivery of possession of the demised property either by the end of 31st October, 1969 or on such day on which the tenant considered that his month of tenancy came to an end. The notice in the light of its unambiguous language can be interpreted to mean that the counsel of the landlord indicated to the defendant that his client wanted to synchronise the act of termination of tenancy with the act of the delivering of vacant possession thereof. In my opinion the language used by the counsel for the plaintiff was intended to terminate the tenancy either on 31st of October or on the day on which the tenant considered that his month of tenancy expired. The notice Ex. 5 does not in any manner carry the idea that the landlord was keen to terminate the tenancy of the defendant immediately on the receipt of the notice. I, therefore, do not find any life in this argument also.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Dhirubhai Laxmanbhai Dobariya vs Ashwin Jayantilal Doshi on 4 April, 2022

27. So far as reliance placed on the decisions of Allahbad High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the cases of Hakim Ziaul Islam (Supra) and Yerrabhothula Krishan Murthy and others (Supra), since it were not considering the requirement of notice under any State Rents Act and the proceedings therein were only under the dispute between the landlord and tenant under the Transfer of Property Act, those decisions Page 47 of 50 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 14:13:29 IST 2022 C/CRA/309/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2022 cannot be pressed into service for a contention that termination of a tenancy in praesenti by a notice would be invalid. Under "the T.P. Act", no ground of ejection has to be made out for eviction of a tenant. However, it requires only notice to quit as contemplated under Section 111 (h) read with Section 106 of "the T.P. Act" and therefore, compliance therein to term the notice as valid or invalid required to be considered. Whereas, under "the Rent Act", only specified provisions and the grounds must be shown for ejectment of tenant incurring liability to vacate in accordance with law stated in "the Rent Act" itself. Even if a notice terminates the tenancy in praesenti, "the Rent Act" provides under Section 12 of it an opportunity to the tenant to make payment thereof until the expiration of period of 1 month after the notice referred to in sub section (2) of Section 12 of "the Rent Act", before tenant incurs liability for a decree of eviction. At any rate, notice terminating the tenancy in praesenti with demand of arrears of rent could be termed as a composite notice and it is permissible under the law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - U A Trivedi - Full Document

Smt. Sushila Devi And Anr. vs Manohar Lal on 12 November, 1984

18. The contention of learned Advocate . for the revisionist was that the said notice was not proper notice to quit manifesting intention of terminating tenancy as was pointed out in Hakim Ziaul Islam v. Mohd. Rafi, reported in AIR 1971 All 302. In that case notice which terminated the tenancy in praesenti and demanded possession of rented premises within a month of the receipt thereof was not held as a proper notice to quit.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Mohammed Indris Mian vs Doman Sah on 23 August, 1977

In the case of Hakim Ziaul Islam v. Mohd. Rafi (AIR 1971 All 302) a learned single Judge declared a notice under Section 106 to be invalid because the landlord had determined the tenancy in question with effect from the date of notice and had asked the tenant to deliver possession within a month from the date of receipt of the notice. It was held that as the tenancy was purported to be terminated on the date of notice, it was invalid under Section 106 of the Act.
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - N P Singh - Full Document

Karthikeya Press, Printers And Book ... vs Madarsa Dawoodiya Arabic College ... on 4 March, 2002

In hakim Ziaul Islam v. Mohd. Rafi, I find that the notice indicted that the landlord wanted to terminate "the tenancy immediately. " This authority can help the appellant only if I hold that in the present case the counsel who had drafted the notice on behalf of the plaintiff; indicated to the defendant the intention of his client to terminate the relationship of the landlord and the tenant immediately. The notice however, does not state that the tenancy was terminated forthwith. The expression 'hereby terminates' cannot be read to mean 'terminated forthwith'. The word 'hereby' means that the tenancy was terminated by that notice. The sentence when read as a whole makes it abundantly clear that the request was made by the landlord for the delivery of possession of the demised property either by the end of 31st October, 1969 or on such day on which the tenant considered that his month of tenancy came to an end. The notice in the light of its unambiguous language can be interpreted to mean that the counsel of the landlord indicated to the defendant that his client wanted to synchronise the act of termination of tenancy with the act of the delivering of vacant possession thereof. In my opinion the language used by the counsel for the plaintiff was intended to terminate the tenancy either on 31st of October or on the day on which the tenant considered that his month of tenancy expired. The notice Ex. 5 does not in any manner carry the idea that the landlord was keen to terminate the tenancy of the defendant immediately on the receipt of the notice. I, therefore, do not find any life in this argument also".
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Haji Tauhed Alam (Since Deceased) And 8 ... vs Saleem Ahmad Khan on 20 September, 2018

8. Elaborating the argument, learned Senior Advocate by placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of Hakim Ziaul Islam Vs. Mohd. Rafi AIR 1971 All (302) and Abdul Jalil Vs. Hazi Abdul Jalil AIR 1974 All (402) submitted that since as per the notice the tenancy was "terminated immediately" as such, the said notice was not a valid notice.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

M.N Dastur & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd vs Sri Dhruves Chandra Chakraborty on 24 August, 2016

In Hakim Ziaul Islam v. Mohd. Rafi AIR 1971 All 302 I find that the notice indicated that the landlord wanted to terminate the tenancy immediately. This authority can help the appellant only if I hold that in the present case the counsel who had drafted the notice on behalf of the plaintiff indicated to the defendant the intention of his client to terminate the relationship of the landlord and the tenant immediately. The notice however, does not state that the tenancy was terminated forthwith. The expression 'hereby terminates' cannot be read to mean 'terminated forthwith'. The word 'hereby' means that the tenancy was terminated by that notice. The sentence when read as a whole makes it abundantly clear that the request was made by the landlord for the delivery of possession of the demised property either by the end of 31st October, 1969 or on such day on which the tenant considered that his month of tenancy came to an end. The notice in the light of its unambiguous language can be interpreted to mean that the counsel of the landlord indicated to the defendant that his client wanted to synchronize the act of termination of tenancy with the act of the delivering of vacant possession thereof. In my opinion the language used by the counsel for the plaintiff was intended to terminate the tenancy either on 31st of October or on the day on which the tenant considered that his month of tenancy expired. The notice Ex. 5 does not in any manner carry the idea that the landlord was keen to terminate the tenancy of the defendant immediately on the receipt of the notice. I therefore, do not find any life in this argument also.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Pal - Full Document

Laxmi Devi vs Chandramani Devi on 13 April, 1971

In this connection learned counsel drew my attention to the case of Hakim Ziaul Islam v. Mohammad Rafi, (1971 All WR (HC) 121) = (AIR 1971 All 302). I am unable to appreciate the argument so advanced and I do not think the ratio of the decision in the case of 1971 All WR (HC) 121 = (AIR 1971 All 302) can, in any way, assist me in interpreting and construing the notice in the instant case. The decision in the case cited turned on the phraseology of the notice that came up for consideration in that case. There in so many words the landlord had said that "your tenancy of the aforesaid house is terminated with effect from today".
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next