Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.55 seconds)
Rabindra Nath Pal vs Dr. Subodh Chandra Halder on 16 May, 2005 cites

Deenar Builders Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Khoday Distileries Limited on 24 November, 1999

16. Thus, from both the case laws cited by the learned advocates for both the parties the necessary implication that emerges is that in case of the unregistered deed of lease of an immovable property the tenancy must be taken as month by month and in that case the service of notice under Section 106 of the T.P Act is necessary. I may recall once again that in the instant case notice was served. This prompts me to take up the second point raised by the learned advocate for the appellant as regards the service of notice.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 12 - V Sen - Full Document

Bhagabandas Agarwalla vs Bhagwandas Kanu & Ors on 25 February, 1977

20. The learned Advocate for the respondent has, however, referred to the ratio decided in the case of Bhagabandas Agarwala v. Bhagwandas Kanu and Ors. wherein it was held that a notice to quit must be construed not with a desire to find faults in it which would render it defective, but it must be construed ut res magis valeat quam pereat. In the said case it was stated in the notice to quit that the tenant was to vacate the premises "within the month of October 1962 otherwise he would be treated as trespasser from 1st November, 1962". The Apex Court in considering the said statement in the notice came to the conclusion that the intention of the landlord was very much clear that they were terminating the tenancy only with effect from the end of the month of October 1962 and not with effect from any earlier point of time during the currency of that month, the Apex Court thus was of the view that the tenancy was, therefore, sought to be terminated on the expiration of the month of October 1962 and not earlier and notice to quit expired with the end of the month of tenancy as required by Section 106 of the Act. But the situation is not the same here in the instant case as we have already discussed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 90 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Akash Ganga Builders & Engineers (P) ... vs G.P. Seth Huf & Anr. on 20 May, 1999

21. The learned advocate for the respondent has referred to another decision in the case of Akash Ganga Builders & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. G.P. Seth, HUF and Anr. AIR 1999 Delhi 362. In that case notice of termination was issued by the landlord calling upon the tenant to handover the possession of premises on 8th day of month and not on the date of end of tenancy month. The Division Bench of that High Court decided that the notice cannot be held invalid on that ground when previous letter by the landlord to the tenant of which there was mention in the notice and its receipt was admitted by the tenant, showed the intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy on the end of tenancy month. The High Court thus found that the combined ruling of the notice which it was in continuation the letter showed that the tenancy stood terminated with effect from 30th June. Their Lordships held that it was only for the handing over possession that time was granted till 8th July, 1996. In the instant case before us the situation is also not like that as was before the High Court at Delhi. There is no letter of notice showing the termination of the tenancy with the end of the tenancy month. Accordingly, the decision in that case also does not come to any help to the respondent/landlord.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 19 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Basheshar Nath vs Delhi Improvement Trust on 12 May, 1953

22. The learned advocate for the respondent has referred to another decision in the case of Basheshar Nath v. Delhi Improvement Trust AIR 1953 Punjab 243. In the said case the effect of second notice was discussed. Thus, it was held-that where a notice to quit was given, a subsequent notice to quit is of no effect unless it can be inferred from other circumstances that a new tenancy has been created after the expiry of the notice, nor does it amount to a waiver of the first notice in the absence of any proof thereof. The facts and circumstances of the case before us as stated above have no bearing with the ratio decided in that case of Punjab High Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Andhra Pradesh Handloom Weavers ... vs K. Venkateswar Rao And Anr. on 4 May, 2000

Similarly, in the other case laws cited by Mr. Roychowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent the facts are miles apart from the facts of the instant case before us. Thus, in the case of A.P. Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Venkateswar Rao AIR 2000 Orissa 153 it was held by the learned single Judge that in case of an unregistered lease of five years the same was treated as a monthly tenancy. In that case fifteen days clear notice was given calling upon the tenant to give vacant possession by the end of the month and the notice was treated as valid.
Orissa High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - P K Misra - Full Document
1