A. Moses Pillai vs M.K. Govindan on 22 August, 1947
Moses Pillai v. Govindan, 1948-1 Mad LJ 51: AIR 1948 Mad 346 was followed.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.32 seconds)R. Krishnamurthy vs S. Parthasarathy And Anr. on 6 January, 1949
But in Krishnamurthy v. Parthasarathy, 1949-1 Mad LJ 412: AIR 1949 Mad 780, this decision was reversed, and the Division Bench held that a notice to quit under S. 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act was not necessary before filing an application under Section 7 of Madras Act XV of 1946.
S. Raja Chetty And Anr. vs Jagannathadas Govindas And Ors. on 16 September, 1946
expressly referred to his own decision in Raja Chetti's case, and pointed out that the decision did not imply that a tenant could validly contract himself out of the benefits conferred on him by the Act.
George Oakes Ltd. vs The Chief Judge, Small Causes Court And ... on 27 February, 1950
(10) In George Oakes Ltd. v. Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, , one of the decisions noticed by our learned brother(Srinivisan J.) in the reference, a Division Bench held that Section 4 of Madras Act XV of 1946, which deals with the fixation of fair rent, expressly included the landlord as a person entitled to apply to have the fair rent fixed. There was nothing in the section to confine its application to contractual rents payable under the subsisting lease. But the landlord could not claim the difference between the fair rent which has been fixed in excess of the contractual rent, and, the contractual rent, anterior to the date of his application. The learned Chief Justice(Rajamannar C.J.)
Dr. K. A. Dhairyawan And Others vs J. R. Thakur And Others on 28 April, 1958
In Dr. K.A. Dhairyawan v. J.R. Thakur, , the Bombay Act LVII of 1947 was the subject of interpretation, with regard to Section 13 of that Act, in the context of the right of the lessee embodied in Section 108(h) of the Transfer of Property Act. the court held that, notwithstanding Section 108, the lessees could contract to hand over the building to the lessors, without the right to receive compensation at the end of the lease; but such a contract did not transfer the ownership in the building to the lessors while the lease subsisted. the provisions of the Bombay Act gave to the person who continued to remain in possession of the land, although the period of the lease might have come to an end, the status of a statutory tenant. In this context, it is important to stress certain features of the Bombay Act LVII of 1947. Section 11 of the Act relates to the fixation of standard rents, by a certain procedure. Section 12 gives a right to a tenant not to be ejected, so long as he pays the standard rent and permitted increases. Under Section 12 (2), there is a further protection against a suit for possession by the landlord on ground of non-payment of these rents, until the expiration of a month after a notice of demand. Section 13 enacts the grounds upon which the landlord is entitled to recover possession of the premises, subject to Section 15 which is a bar of the tenant's right to sub-letting or transfer.
Dr. H. S. Rikhy And Others vs The New Delhi Municipal Committee on 13 September, 1961
H.S. Rikhy v. New Delhi Municipality, is a decision on the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 38 of 1952.
Bhaiya Punjalal Bhagwanddin vs Dave Bhagwatprasad Prabhuprasad on 4 May, 1962
In Siddappa v. Venkatesah, AIR 1965 Mys 65 a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court held, following Punjalal's case that under Bombay ACT LVII of 1947a suit for eviction was not maintainable. unless the tenancy was both determined by a notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and another notice as required by S. 12(2) of the Bombay Act. We have already stressed the great difficulty in adopting such a view on the interpretation of the Madras Act, and the consideration against that view.
Mangilal vs Suganchand Rathi on 24 October, 1963
(20) Mangilal v. Suganchand, is a decision on the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 23 of 1955. The provisions of Section 4 of this Act were held to be in addition to those of the Transfer of Property Act, and the court held that before a tenant can be evicted by a landlord, he must comply with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and those of Section 4. Notice under Section 106 was essential to bring to an end the relationship of landlord and tenant, and unless that relationship was determined, the Act did not come into force, and the landlord did not get a right of eviction. The effect of clause (a) of Section 4 of the Act did not convert a periodic tenancy into one of fixed or indefinite duration, nor insert therein a clause of re-entry on the ground of non-payment of rent. The character of the tenancy as one from month to month remained. A condition was added by this Act that the unfettered right to terminate the tenancy conferred by Section 106 will be exercisable only if one of the grounds set out in Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Act is shown to exist.
Anand Nivas (Private) Ltd vs Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi & Ors on 5 September, 1963
(22) In Anand Nivas Private Ltd., v. Anandji Kalyanji's Pedhi, , we have the latest decision on Bombay Act 57 of 1947, with reference to the juxtaposition of Sections 13, 14 and 15 of several of which I have earlier referred to. It is here we find that the Supreme Court commented upon the neologism of "statutory tenant" and its implication, at page 422:
Shyamacharan Raghubar Prasad vs Sheojee Bhai Jairam Chattri And Anr. on 26 February, 1964
(24) We may here notice certain decisions cited at the Bar, particularly by Sri Thiruvenkatachari, upon the relationship between a contractual tenancy and a statutory tenancy and the principle that the jural relationship of landlord and tenant does not arise from mere nomenclature or any accidental features. Thus, in Shyamacharan v. Sheojee Bhai, , a Bench of that court held that a settlement pendent lite in a suit for eviction, by which the tenant undertook certain obligations of payment, did not create a fresh tenancy or leasehold right.