Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 209 (1.28 seconds)
Documents citing C. Albert Morris vs K. Chandrasekaran & Ors on 26 October, 2005

National Company vs The Territory Manager on 19 September, 2019

79.We are of the view that the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another vs Dolly Das and in C.Albert Morris vs K Chandrasekharan and others (2006) 1 SCC 228 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be applied to the facts of the present case particularly in the light of the fact that in Tamil Nadu particularly in the city of Chennai where there is a special law giving rights to a tenant under the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.
Madras High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

The Society Of St. Joseph'S College vs Union Of India on 28 February, 2007

16. Mr. Gopalan has further relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2006) 1 SCC 228 in the case of C. Albert Morris vs. K.Chandrasekaran & Others to substantiate his contention that the petitioner ought to have filed only a suit for ejectment and ought not to have approached this Court by way of a writ petition and the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

Mahendra Kumar @ Mahendra Bhandari vs M/S Amazon Drugs Pvt.Ltd on 25 June, 2015

23. In the instant case, the defendant initially was a tenant under M/s Sanghvi Manmul Rajaji & Co. Subsequently the plaintiffs became the owners of the suit schedule property and the defendant has been paying the rent to the plaintiffs i.e., the father and son. Thus, it is clear that the defendant has admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit premises. Merely because the plaintiffs have received the rents even after the issuance of notice of termination of tenancy itself is not a ground 30 O.S.No.1782/2011 to come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the damages subsequent to the termination of tenancy. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA no.198/2015 has held that "receipt of any amount as damages unilaterally, without determination of the same at an enquiry, cannot be binding on the tenant, and would be speculative as to the possibility of any such damages being quantified at a later stage". But, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.Albert Morris Vs. K.Chandrasekaran & others.
Bangalore District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh.Jasvinder Singh vs Suresh Kumar Tanwar on 3 September, 2011

17. On the other hand in the judgment relied upon by the ld. counsel for respondent in "C. Albert Morice Vs. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors" [2006 1 SCC 228] case as above referred, it was held that in a case where a tenant was holding over despite landlord's protest and the lease period having expired, landlord required the tenant to vacate the premises and even intimated him that no amount paid by them after expiry of the lease period would be adjusted against the possession and should not be treated as landlord's consent for tenancy and it was held that in such circumstances, mere acceptance of rent by the landlord would not be viewed to confer on the erstwhile tenant, the status of a tenant or the right of possession.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Indraprastha Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. ... vs National Insurance Company Limited on 27 November, 2012

22. Considering the arguments made on behalf of the parties and lease deed placed on record, provision of law, precedent on this point and discussion made above, I am of the view that a relationship of tenant and landlord has been admitted by the parties and rent was Rs.43,725/­ p.m. and the tenancy was terminated as the lease deed got expired by efflux of time on 14.12.10. The judgment relied upon by the defendant is not applicable in the present case as the facts of this case are different. Relying upon the judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court titled as "C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran, (2006) 1 SCC 228" it can be easily concluded that since no fresh lease deed was executed between the parties after the expiry of previous lease by efflux of time on 14.12.2010 and mere acceptance of rent after the termination of lease would not create a tenancy so as to confer on the erstwhile tenant, the status of a tenant or a right to be in possession.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Senior Manager vs Smt K A Anitha on 15 October, 2024

17. In this connection, it is necessary to make a cursory glance of Act 144, 153(1) (i), 154 (2) of Petroleum Act. The scope, ambit and the relevance of the jural relation of lessor and lessee is taken care of by the said legal provisions. Further, the Apex Court in the case of C. Albert Morris Vs. K.Chandrasekaran and others (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 228, have considered the boundary line, demarking, the possession over a property of a lessee in possession of the leased property during lease and the one after the termination of lease. Accordingly, the Petroleum Rules do not permit the appellant to claim possession over the property, paving way for carrying on the petroleum business. Thus, the 3rd respondent Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, had the jurisdiction to revoke the 'No Objection Certificate'. However, he ought not to have given emphasis on the lease and its termination. Regard being had to the fact that those observations neither add nor deduct any of rights or duties to either of the parties. Though possession of the appellant- Corporation over the property till termination of tenancy was lawful, but became unlawful after termination of lease.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Society Of St. Joseph'S College ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By ... on 28 February, 2007

16. Mr. Gopalan has further relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C. Albert Morris v. K.Chandrasekaran and Ors. to substantiate his contention that the petitioner ought to have filed only a suit for ejectment and ought not to have approached this Court by way of a writ petition and the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

Abl International Limited vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 14 December, 2018

25. We have also considered the rival submissions in relation to the issue urged by the defendant that a fresh tenancy was created after the lease expired by efflux of time and are not persuaded to accept the contention of the defendant. The defendant has not pleaded such a case in its written statement or that the plaintiff had assented to the defendant continuing in possession of the leased premises. Further, the plaintiff accepted occupation charges from the defendant "without prejudice" which would be evident from the plaintiff's letter dated 2nd January, 1991 (Exhibit-L) for the period after expiry of the lease to 31st May, 1994 when the defendant relinquished the suit premises. We are in agreement with the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Albert vs. K. Chandrasekharan & Others reported in (2006) 1 SCC 228 that acceptance of occupation charges after expiry of the period of a lease does not create a fresh tenancy. We accept the contention of counsel for the respondent/plaintiff in this regard that mere continuance in occupation of the demised premises after expiry of a lease, notwithstanding the receipt of an amount by the landlord, would not create a tenancy so as to confer on the erstwhile tenant the status of a tenant or a right to be in possession. As laid down in the decision cited, the status of an erstwhile tenant has to be treated as a tenant at sufferance and akin to a trespasser having no independent right to continue in possession. We are also in agreement with the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on 21 the decisions considered on this issue particularly in Bhawanji Lakhamshi, Smt. Phool Rani Trivedi and Shanti Prasad Devi where it was held that the determining factor is whether the landlord has assented to the continuing possession of a tenant after expiry of the lease. The plea of holding over is not open to the tenant where a lease for a fixed period has been determined by efflux of time and the lease does not contain any renewal clause,
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M Bhattacharya - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next