Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 144 (1.82 seconds)
Documents citing Bhawanji Lakhamhi & Ors vs Himatlal Jamnadas Dani & Ors on 14 December, 1971

M. Muthu (Died) And Four Others vs Arulmigu Sundareswararswamy ... on 12 January, 2001

4. For the respondent reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani, . This decision of the Supreme Court was in my judgment not correctly appreciated by the lower appellate Court. In para 9 of this report the Supreme Court observed: what the section contemplated is that on one side there should be an offer of taking a new lease evidenced by the lessee of sub-lessee remaining in possession of the property after his term over and on the other side there must be a definite consent to the continuance of possession by the landlord expressed by acceptance of rent or otherwise. Applying this test to the present case it appears that both the conditions formulated by the Supreme Court are present in this case. There was evidence of an offer of taking a new lease on the part of the lessee evidenced by remaining in possession of the property after expiry of the term and on the other side there is evidence of definite consent on the part of the respondent-landlord to the appellant's continuance in possession, the same being expressed by acceptance of rent on 31.10.1972. That being so, the conditions posted by Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act were fully satisfied in this case and the appellant became a tenant of the respondent in the disputed shop by holding over.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Popular Estate Management Ltd vs Gunjan Paints Ltd on 20 April, 2022

14. The Court below has totally failed to appreciate and consider that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Page 24 of 30 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 20 21:31:12 IST 2022 C/SCA/8941/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2022 case of Bhawanji Lakhamshi (supra) have had reached the Supreme Court after fulfledged trial of the suit where the parties had adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Supreme Court has after considering the evidence which was adduced by the parties during the course of the trial of the suit has held that the act of held over after the expiration of the term does not creat of tenancy of any kind and mere acceptance of amount equivalent to rent by the land from the tenant in possession after the lease has been determined cannot be regarded as an evidence of a new agreement of tenancy.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A G Uraizee - Full Document

Vasudeva Menon vs M/S. K.J.Plantation

Besides, as we have already indicated the animus of the tenant in tendering the rent is also material. If he tenders the rent as the rent payable under the statutory tenancy, the landlord cannot, by accepting it as rent, create a tenancy by holding over. In such a case the parties would not be id idem and there will be no consensus. The decision in AIR 1961 SC 1067 which followed the principles laid down by the Federal Court in 1949 FCR 262- (AIR 1949 FC 124) is correct and does not require re-consideration."
Kerala High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - M L Francis - Full Document

Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager vs T E Vasudevmurthy on 19 August, 2024

This Court in the judgments in Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani, Badrilal v. Municipal Corpn., Indore and R.V. Bhupal Prasad v. State of A.P and also a judgment in Sevoke Properties Ltd. v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. examined the scope of Section 116 of the TP Act and held that the lease would be renewed as a tenant holding over only if the lessor accepts the payment of rent after the expiry of lease period. This Court in Bhawanji Lakhamshi held as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deep Chand vs Babu Ram on 21 May, 1976

4. For the respondent reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani, (AIR 1972 SC 819). This decision of the Supreme Court was in my judgment not correctly appreciated by the lower appellate court. In para. 9 of this report the Supreme Court observed: "What the section contemplated is that on one side there should be an offer of taking a new lease evidenced by the lessee or sub-lessee remaining in possession of the property after his term was over and on the other side there must be a definite consent to the continuance of possession by the landlord expressed by acceptance of rent or otherwise". Applying this test to the present case it appears that both the conditions formulated by the Supreme Court are present in this case. There was evidence of an offer of taking a new lease on the part of the lessee evidenced by remaining in possession of the property after expiry of the term and on the other side there is evidence of definite consent on the part of the respondent-landlord to the appellant's continuance in possession, the same being expressed by acceptance of rent on 31-10-1972. That being so, the conditions posited by Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act were fully satisfied in this case and the appellant became a tenant of the respondent in the disputed shop by holding over.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

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

We have already referred to Bhawanji Lakhamsi vs. Himatlal Jammadas Dani wherein this Court held that the act of holding over after the expiration of the term does not create a tenancy of any kind. A new tenancy is created only when the landlord assents to the continuance of the erstwhile tenant or the landlord agrees to accept rent for the continued possession of the land by the erstwhile tenant. The contention of Mr. L.N. Rao that the landlord's assent should be inferred from the conduct of the landlord who had filed the suit for ejectment, but did not pursue the same, has no force. This suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, liberty for which the Court has granted. The possession of this site by the erstwhile lessee does not ripen into a lawful possession merely because the landlord did not proceed with the suit for ejectment at that time, but reserved the right to bring such a suit at a later point of time. That cannot amount to an assent on his part to the continued occupation of the land under cover of a right asserted by the erstwhile lessee. The words "right to the site" in Rule 153(1)(i) must, therefore, in our opinion, be given their full meaning and the effect that unless the person seeking a licence is in a position to establish a right to the site, he would not be entitled to hold or have his licence renewed. We have already rejected the contention of Mr. L.N. Rao that the appellant tenant is a statutory tenant for the reasons recorded earlier. The lease deed is very clear as to what was leased. The lease was of vacant land. That is evident from the recitals in the plaint, legal notice, lease deed, etc. It is, therefore, not in dispute that the lease of land is not covered by the statute, the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 in force extending protection to the tenants.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

Committee Of Creditors Of Kindle ... vs New Okhla Industrial Development ... on 18 September, 2024

This Court in Bhawanji Lakhamshi [Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani, (1972) 1 SCC 388] held as under : (SCC p. 391, para 9) "9. The act of holding over after the expiration of the term does not create a tenancy of any kind. If a tenant remains in possession after the determination of the lease, the common law rule Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 554 of 2024 With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 506 of 2024 28 is that he is a tenant on sufferance. A distinction should be drawn between a tenant continuing in possession after the determination of the term with the consent of the landlord and a tenant doing so without his consent. The former is a tenant at sufferance in English law and the latter a tenant holding over or a tenant at will. In view of the concluding words of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a lessee holding over is in a better position than a tenant at will.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Sohanlal Agarwal vs Dr. Zakir Hussain on 18 April, 2003

(1) Bhawanji Lakhamshi and Ors. v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani and Ors., , postulates, what constitutes a tenant by holding over, within the meaning of the said Section 116 of the said Transfer of Property Act. When, the case, on hand, is examined from the legal position postulated in this Ruling, it will be manifest, that, the defendant is not a tenant by holding over, as already found, earlier.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next