Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (2.10 seconds)
Documents citing Badri Narain Jha And Others vs Rameshwar Dayal Singh And Others on 5 February, 1951

S.N. Sheopuri vs Fab India Overseas P. Ltd. on 4 July, 2011

This Court in Badri Narain Jha v. Rameshwar Dayal Singh held that if a lessor purchases the whole of the lessee's interest, the lease is extinguished by merger, but there can be no merger or extinction where one of several joint holders of the mokarrari interest purchases portion of the lakhraj interest. It was held that when there was no coalescence of the interest of the lessor and the lessee in the whole of the estate, there could be no determination of the lease by merger. We do not think that it is necessary to multiply authorities in the face of the plain language of the provision and the authoritative pronouncements of the Privy Council and of this Court referred to above. The position emerging from the relevant provision of the Transfer of Property Act is that the lease or tenancy does not get determined by the tenant acquiring the rights of a co-owner landlord and a merger takes place and the lease gets determined only if the entire reversion or the entire rights of the landlord are purchased by the tenant.‖
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 9 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Smt. Abnash Rani Suri vs Smt. Santosh Chaudhary on 5 September, 2011

"Ownership of the property which is the subject­matter of tenancy is certainly a larger estate than the tenancy itself and naturally larger than the sub­tenancy. If the sub­tenant acquires the entire interest of the owner in the whole of the estate forming the subject­ matter of sub­tenancy, the sub­tenancy merges into ownership and the estate of sub­tenant stands enlarged into that of a full owner. The sub­ tenant cannot be the owner and the sub­tenant both at the same time. Of course, the situation would have been different if the sub­tenant would not have acquired the entire estate of the owner or the ownership interest in the entire estate forming subject­matter of sub­ lease, as was the case in Badri Narain Jha an others vs. Rameshwar Dayal Singh and others, AIR 1951 SC 186 or in Shaikh Faqir Baksh v. Murli Dhar and others, AIR 1931 PC 63.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Joginder Singh Nagi vs M/S New Silver Line Traders Pvt Ltd. on 19 July, 2017

16. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Badri Narain Jha and Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Dayal Singh & Ors. (supra). The facts of that case were that the village in question belonged to a family as their ancestral lakhraj. They had granted the entire village in mokarrari to a family. It was in these circumstances that the Supreme Court held as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - J Nath - Full Document

Ranjan Kumar Sinha vs Prabir Kumar Sinha And Ors. on 4 July, 2006

v. Ram Ekbal Rai (dead) By His Legal Representatives and Ors.] 5] [Kendrya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority] 6] Vol LXVI Indian Appeals 210 [Monghibai v. Cooverji Umersey] 7] [Badri Narain Jha and Ors. v. Rameshwar Dayal Singh and Ors.] 8] [Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Sumitra Chakraborty] 9] 66 CWN 441 [Tiloke Chand Chopra v. Ramdhandas Beharilal and Anr.] 10] [Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry and Ors.]
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - K Mukherjee - Full Document

Shantaram Laxmanrao Kekre vs Shyam Sundar And Anr. on 1 April, 1971

13. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are clearly distinguishable. They are all cases of lessors' assignee suing for eviction. On an assignment of the reversion, the assignee succeeds to the rights and liabilities of the lessors in respect of covenants which run with the land. The assignee of the lessor has, therefore, against the lessee all the rights that the lessor had. The reversion may be severed by an assignment of the reversion in part or by an assignment of the part of the reversion. In either case, the covenant which runs with the land runs with the severed parts and the assignee in respect of the part has the benefit of the lessee's covenants and equally bears the burden of lessor's covenants. Though Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to a partition among the lessors, (sic) by application of Section 109 as embodying a rule of justice and equity, it is well settled that a partition among the lessors inter se does not affect the integrity of the lease (See, Badri Narain Jha v. Rameshwar Dayal Singh, AIR 1951 SC 186). In that case, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court stated as follows:--
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - A P Sen - Full Document

The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs Abdul Ahad And Ors. on 9 October, 1969

Referring to the same passage from the judgment of Lord Halsbury Mahajan. J., as he then was, has expressed the same view in almost identical language in the case of Badri Narain Jha v. Rameshwar Dayal Singh, AIR 1951 SC 186 at p. 189 (column 1). In my opinion, if liability to pay rent of the tenants who hold the leasehold property as tenants-in-common is joint qua the landlord, the tenancy will be a joint tenancy and they will be joint tenants for the purpose of service of notice also either under Section 106 or Section 111(g) of the Act.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Polu Vengal Reddy And Ors. vs Kaki Venkata Brahmanandam (Died) And ... on 3 February, 2004

23. However, having regard to the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court in T. Lakshmipathi v. P. Nithyananda Reddy (supra), which again has come to be rendered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, I960 and the earlier four Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Badri Narain's case (supra) and the judgment of the Privy Council referred to supra, it is obvious that there cannot be a merger of a lease and sale if the lessee purchases a moiety of lease hold right from one of the coparceners or joint owners of the property/lessors. In between the lessors and the lessees inter se the lease subsists. Once the lease subsists, the lessee is liable to pay rent and is also liable to other consequences as per the provisions of the Act. In view of this clear legal position, the Respondents 3 and 4 cannot be heard to say that they are not liable to be evicted from the demised premises having purchased 1/12th share of the demised premises from one of the lessors.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next