Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)
Vasant Sakharam Sanas vs Chabildas Sobhagchand on 19 November, 1973 cites

Srimati Giribala Dasi vs Kalidas Bhanja on 3 July, 1920

16. It is, however, argued by Mr. Pratap, that the ruling of the Privy Council in Giribala's case cannot be relied upon inasmuch as, it has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act and the provisions of Section 29 of the Contract Act, According to Mr. Pratap, that decision is based only on the provisions of Section 21(c) of the since repealed Specific Relief Act of 1877. Mr. Pratap further argues that if we import the provisions of Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act, into the agreement in question, we could certainly fix the date of the commencement of the lease from the date of the making of the lease. I am unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Pratap.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Kailas Chandra Bhaumick And Ors. vs Bejoy Kanta Lahiri Chowdhury And Anr. on 13 May, 1915

25. We are then left with the fact that as appears from the decision in Kailas Chandra's case and the case of Raja of Vizianagaram, the Calcutta and the Madras High Courts have taken the view that the provisions of Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act could be imported into an agreement to lease for ascertaining' the date of the commencement of the tenancy.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963

12. In the instant case we are concerned with interpreting an agreement to lease. There is absolutely no scope for importing into this agreement between the parties the provisions of the Act of 1947. That Act nowhere deals with an agreement to lease. Section 11 of that Act on which reliance is placed deals with fixation of standard rent in the circumstances mentioned therein and it does not and could not having regard to the preamble to the Act and the provisions in the Act provide for fixation of contractual rent, or rent. As held by the Supreme Court in Baizada Topandas v. Gorakhram (1968) 66 Bom. L.R. 106, S.C. all the provisions of the Act of 1947 proceed on the footing that there is or was, at the inception, a relation of landlord and tenant between the parties. At page 114, we have the following relevant observations of Sarkar J., ...The Act (The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947) does not create any tenancy. That has to be created by a contract. The question whether the appellants are sub-tenants, that is to say, tenants of a certain kind, is really a question whether a contract of tenancy was made between the appellants and the respondent. That question is not one arising out of the Act for the Act says nothing as to the creation of a tenancy and is only concerned with the regulation of the relations between a landlord and tenant in a tenancy the existence of which is otherwise brought about.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 34 - S K Das - Full Document

Dattatraya Krishna Jangam vs Jairam Ganesh Gore on 4 September, 1964

Section 28 of the Act of 1947, as has been repeatedly held in numerous cases and the latest of which is the Full Bench decision reported in Daitatraya Krishna v. Jairam Ganesh F.B. would come into play when a landlord or tenant files a suit relating to the recovery of possession in their capacity as such. Since in the instant case, in the very nature of things, that status of landlord and tenant would only be brought about by the decree for specific performance, Section 28 of the Act of 1947 could not be a bar for decreeing the suit for possession simultaneously while decreeing the suit for specific performance.
Bombay High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 69 - Full Document
1