Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Sri M.C. Mohammed S/O Hassan vs Smt. Gowrmmma W/O Jayarama Reddy And ... on 9 November, 2006

Durga Govinda Rajulu vs Perla Rajabai on 13 February, 2025

"11. ... ... ... the High Court found that the lease could be taken as lease for a period of eleven months. In view of the evidence thus obtained and taking into account the decision in Shanti Prasad Devi‟s case (supra) the High Court held that mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease. Relying on a Division Bench decision of the High Court in M.C. Mohammed Vs. Smt. Gowramma [AIR) 2007 KAR 46] rendered relying on the decision in Pooran Chand Vs. Motilal & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 461], held that on expiry of the term fixed under the deed the tenant would not be entitled to statutory notice under Section 106 of the TP Act. It was found that on determination of the lease by efflux of time no further termination of the tenancy by issuing a statutory notice to bring termination of a lease already terminated is necessary. Taking into account the evidence on record the said conclusions the consequential reversal of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court cannot be held as perverse or illegal warranting interference. As the judgment and decree of the Civil Court was not „according to law‟, the High Court was certainly within its rights to set aside the decree in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. ... ... ..."
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Irfan vs Hasan Mian Sinc Deceased Through His ... on 10 December, 2024

7.3 In the case of K.M. Manjunath vs. Erappa G. Dead through LRs, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2316, the Supreme Court approved the decision of the High Court whereby relying upon a Division Bench decision of the RFA 785/2024 Page 12 of 19 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, GIRISH KATHPALIA 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE60402C487965FF 801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Signature Not Verified Date: 2024.12.10 14:23:27 -08'00' Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Date:10.12.2024 17:37:06 Karnataka High Court in the case of M.C. Mohammed vs. Smt. Gowramma, AIR 2007 Kar 46, rendered relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pooran Chand vs. Motilal, AIR 1964 SC 461 held that on expiry of the term fixed under the rent deed, the tenant would not be entitled to statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was held that on determination of the lease by efflux of time, no further termination of the tenancy by issuing statutory notice to bring termination of a lease already terminated is necessary.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Durga Govinda Rajulu vs Perla Rajabai on 13 February, 2025

"11. ... ... ... the High Court found that the lease could be taken as lease for a period of eleven months. In view of the evidence thus obtained and taking into account the decision in Shanti Prasad Devi‟s case (supra) the High Court held that mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease. Relying on a Division Bench decision of the High Court in M.C. Mohammed Vs. Smt. Gowramma [AIR) 2007 KAR 46] rendered relying on the decision in Pooran Chand Vs. Motilal & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 461], held that on expiry of the term fixed under the deed the tenant would not be entitled to statutory notice under Section 106 of the TP Act. It was found that on determination of the lease by efflux of time no further termination of the tenancy by issuing a statutory notice to bring termination of a lease already terminated is necessary. Taking into account the evidence on record the said conclusions the consequential reversal of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court cannot be held as perverse or illegal warranting interference. As the judgment and decree of the Civil Court was not „according to law‟, the High Court was certainly within its rights to set aside the decree in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. ... ... ..."
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Bhagwan Devi vs Sh. Din Dayal on 30 March, 2012

It has been held in AIR 2007 Karnatka 46 title M.C. Mohammed V. Smt. Gowramma & Ors. (which is otherwise, law of land) that once tenancy has been terminated then there is no need of fresh termination unless there is any fresh relationship. The present case is rather on the better footing because here the defendant was not even lessee but was only merely having unauthorised possession or at the most licencee. He was not required for notice first of all and rather was served with notice which was not replied and thus there was no need of any fresh notice as observed above. The defendant has taken the stand RCA-265/2000 Page No. 5/6 that he was true owner but no such evidence has been led and testimony of plaintiff had remained unchallenged and rebutted. There was no need to seek permission from previous court because as stated above, the suit was dismissed on technical ground and plaintiff wants to take back her possession. The sale deed Ex. PW-1/2 in favour of plaintiff is available on record. On the other hand the defendant has failed to show document of ownership. In these circumstances, all these issues are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and suit is held not barred due to resjudicata and is also not beyond limitation and it is held that plaintiff/appellant is entitled for possession.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Din Dayal Since Deceased Thr Lrs. vs Bhagwan Devi on 21 September, 2015

9. The First Appellate Court also held that looking to the relationship between the parties, the cause of action was a continuing one. In fact, there was no need for issuance of a notice to seek possession from an unauthorised occupant, or even a licensee. Reliance was placed by the First Appellate Court in M.C. Mohammed v. Smt. Gowramma & Ors., AIR 2007 Kar 46, wherein it was held that once a tenancy had been terminated, there was no need of fresh termination, unless there was a fresh relationship created between the parties.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Smt. Chandralekha vs ) Sri Manas Ranjan Satapathy on 16 December, 2015

The letter dated 22.08.2011 is marked as Ex.D.3. Though the defendant has filed written statement counter claim in the above suit directing the plaintiff to return back the lease deposits of Rs.1,32,288/- with 12% interest till the date of suit and take back the keys of the premises, the defendant has not paid the Court fee for the counter claim. It is submitted by the plaintiff in the Court. The plaintiff has cited the decisions reported in AIR 2013 ANDHRA 19 O.S.No.4510/2011 PRADESH 7 (Alok Kumar Sharma v/s Smt.T. Hemalatha), AIR 1996 DELHI 32 (Vinod Khanna & others v/s Bakshi Sachdev (Deceased) Through LRs & others, 2006(2) AIR KARN.R.45 (B. Savithramma v/s B. Rajagopala Naidu) and AIR 2007 KAR.46 (M.C. Mohammed v/s Smt.Gowramma & others). These citations are not applicable to the case on hand. When the defendants are trying to hand over the key, the plaintiff has avoided to take back the key. In that regard the plaintiff is not entitled to future rent from the defendants. With the consent of both counsels, the Commissioner has been appointed. The Commissioner has submitted report in regarding of damage of the property. That amount of Rs.33,3225/- is entitled by the plaintiff with due of 2 months Rs.27,712/- as admitted by the defendants. That amount has been given deducted in the advance amount and remaining amount has to be returned to the defendant. Though the defendant is claiming interest he is not entitled for interest. The amount has already deposited by the plaintiff in the Court. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for damages including two months rent, in all total of Rs.61,037/-. These are the above grounds I 20 O.S.No.4510/2011 come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the termination of tenancy and defendant has proved that they have vacated the schedule premises and the plaintiff is entitled for damages. Accordingly I answer issue No.1 in affirmative, issue No.2 & 3 partly in affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1