Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Baldeodas Mahavirprasad vs G.P. Sonavalla on 8 January, 1948

Manindra Nath De vs Man Singh on 14 February, 1950

21. Now keeping this in view, what is the inference that can be drawn from the production of a rent receipt ? It is possible that when the tenant paid the rent in respect of which the rent receipts were granted, he had in mind the obligation imposed on him by the Rent Control Act, It is possible that he wanted to pay the-rent with a view that the landlord should accept it as rent under the contract of tenancy which has been determined and with a view to renew it. The production of a mere rent receipt does not help to decide under which of the two categories the payment of rent evidenced by the rent receipt falls. It is, as has been said in some of the decided cases, an equivocal evidence and, being equivocal, it necessarily is not enough to prove an agreement. For this reason I am unable to hold that the rent receipts that have been produced in this case are sufficient evidence of an agreement to continue the tenancy and so of waiver of the notice to quit. This is also the view expressed by Chagla C. J. in Baldeodas Mahabirprosad v. G.P. Sonavala A. I. R. (35) 1948 Bom. 385 : (50 Bom. L. R. 233). The onus of proving what is called "waiver of the notice to quit" and what in reality is an agreement is on the party relying on it and the waiver is not proved by the production of a rent receipt only after the Rent Act has come into operation.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Mahadeo Prasad vs Sm. Sulekha Sarkar on 22 January, 1954

A similar view of the law was also expressed by Das Gupta J. in the other case--' (B)', cited in the judgment of the lower appellate Court, and I am inclined to think that, broadly speaking, the general law of waiver of notice to quit, as laid down by my learned brothers Das Gupta J. and Sarkar J. in the two cases, cited above, and by the Bombay High Court in -- 'AIR 1948 Bom 385 (L)', is correct. In the case before P. B. Mukherji J., -- '83 Cal LJ 329 (D)', there was clear evidence of a fresh agreement of tenancy and, although one may not agree with every thing that was said in that judgment, no legitimate exception can possibly be taken to the summing up of the learned Judge at page 337. of the Report that "Each case has to be judged on its own facts and merits keeping in view the fundamental principle that waiver is an intentional relin-quishment of a known right which I consider to be the basic foundation of the law on this point."
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Digambar Narain Chaudhary vs Commissioner Of Trihut Division And ... on 20 August, 1958

The Division Bench has held that when a tenant of certain premises to which Bombay Act VII of 1944 applies continues in possession after the termination of his tenancy by notice to quit, he becomes a statutory tenant whom the landlord cannot eject so long as the tenant carries out the conditions laid down in Section 9 of that Act. It further lays down that the mere acceptance of rent is not by itself sufficient to bring into existence a new tenancy as contemplated by Section 116, Transfer of Property Act, as it used to be prior to the passing of the Rent Restriction Act, and, therefore, in order to show that a new tenancy has been created under Section 116, Transfer of Property Act, it must be shown that the acceptance of rent by the landlord was attributable to his assenting to a new tenancy coming into force.
Patna High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 13 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Mangalagauri Trikamalal Verma vs Dr. Mrs. Kamal Anil Adhiya on 2 September, 1993

17. In response to the submissions canvassed by Mr. Kumbhakoni with regard to the unreasonableness of the view that a breach once committed under section 12(3)(a) is not curable and that it is not within the province even of the Court to condone the breach. Mr. Abhyankar has relied on two decisions of this Court. The first of them being reported in 50 Bom.L.R. page 233 in the case of Baldeodas Mahavirprasad v. G.P. Sonawalla, and the second one is reported in 51 Bom.L.R. page 874, in the case of Kaikhushroo Bezonjer v. Bai Jerbai. The point in question has been agitated several times before the courts and the position is now well settled that the breach virtually brings an end to the contract of lease.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thanu Ittiachen vs Mundi And Ors. on 6 July, 1961

In Baldeodas v. G. P. Sonavalla, AIR 1948 Bom 385, a tenant of certain premises, governed by the Bombay Rent Control Act, continued in possession after, the termination o his tenancy by notice to quit; and it was held that the acceptance of the rent by the landlord cannot be treated to be only on the basis of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the position of law has altered since the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narota Ram Salig Ram vs Bhagwat Krishan And Ors. on 23 October, 1959

In Baldeodas Mahavirprasad v. G. O. Sanavalla, AIR 1948 Bom 385, while dealing with the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, it was observed that the mere acceptance of rent is not by itself sufficient to bring into existence new tenancy as contemplated by Section 116, Transfer of Property Act, as it used to be prior to the passing of the Rent Restriction Act. Acceptance of rent, according to this authority, must be attributable to an assent by the landlord to bring about a new tenancy.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - I D Dua - Full Document
1