Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.21 seconds)Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
M/S Nopany Investments (P) Ltd vs Santokh Singh (Huf) on 10 December, 2007
Accordingly, in view of the
decision in the case of Nopany (supra) I
hold that even assuming the notice
terminating tenancy was not served upon
the Appellant (though it has been served
and as held by me above) the tenancy
would stand terminated on filing of the
subject suit against the
Appellant/Defendant.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. vs Kavita P Lalwani on 25 May, 2012
Even
assuming for sake of arguments that notice terminating the
tenancy was not served upon the defendant, though it is alleged
to be served upon the defendant, the tenancy would stand
terminated by service of summons of suit on defendant on
06.04.2016 in terms of law laid in the case of Nopani
Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The defendant had with her 15
days clear and reasonable time in terms of Section 106 of
Transfer of Property Act after service of summons of the suit on
06.04.2016 for handing over the possession of the suit property
to plaintiff.
C. Albert Morris vs K. Chandrasekaran & Ors on 26 October, 2005
13.2 In C. Albert Morris V. K. Chandrasekaran, VIII
(2005) SLT 247 = (2006) 1 SCC 228, the Supreme
Court held as under :
"26. ...Much argument was advanced on the
receipt of the rent by the landlord after the
cancellation of the lease. The consensus of
judicial opinion in this country is that a mere
continuance in occupation of the demised
premises after the expiry of the lease,
notwithstanding the receipt of an amount by
the quondam landlord, would not create a
tenancy so as to confer on the erstwhile tenant
the status of tenant or a right to be in
possession...'
"32. ...We are, therefore, of the opinion that
mere acceptance of rent by the landlord,
the first respondent herein, from the tenant
in possession after the lease has been
determined either by efflux of time or by
notice to quit 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 Jal Board vs Surendra P. Malik on 24 March, 2003
(Emphasis supplied)
13.3 In Delhi Jal Board V. Surendra P. Malik, 104
(2003) DLT 151 (DB), the Division Bench of this court
held as under :
CS -206777/16 Jatinder Kaur Vs. Priti sharma page 9 of 19
"12. It is no longer a grey area that where a
tenancy had otherwise expired by efflux of
time but the tenant continued in possession
of the premises, mere acceptance of rent by
the landlord could neither renew the
tenancy nor create a new one. That is so
because such subsequent occupation of
premises was not in pursuance of any
contract, express or implied between the
parties...."
Usha Rani Jain And Ors. vs Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 8 August, 2005
"13. ...In any case, this aspect does not assume
any importance as no notice under Section
106 was required to be served on appellant
due to the expiry of the Lease between the
parties by efflux of time." (Emphasis
supplied)
13.4 In Usha Rani Jain Vs. Nirulas Corner House
Private Limited, ILR (2005) II Delhi 349, this Court
held as under :
"17. Though a plea was taken in written
statement about non determination of the
lease because no notice to quit as envisaged
under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property
Act has been served on the defendants before
filing of the present suit, but this aspect was
not pressed at the hearing. Even otherwise, it
is a well settled proposition of law that
when the term of the lease has expired by
efflux of time, there is no need for a
landlord to determine the lease by serving
quit notice.
Inmacs Ltd. vs Prema Sinha & Ors. on 26 September, 2008
(Emphasis supplied)
13.5 In Inmacs Limited V. Prema Sinha, 153 (2008)
DLT 311 (DB), the Division Bench of this court held as
under :
"13.
Ashok Chopra & Ors. vs Syndicate Bank & Anr. on 26 March, 2010
(Emphasis supplied)
13.6 In Ashok Chopra V. Syndicate Bank, 169 (2010)
DLT 361, this Court held as under :
"17. It is clear that the tenancy had come to an
end by a efflux of time. Admittedly, there
was no document executed between the
parties renewing the lease. Tenancy having
expired by efflux of time; no notice was
required to terminate the lease...."