Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)C. Albert Morris vs K. Chandrasekaran & Ors on 26 October, 2005
22. Considering the arguments made on behalf of the parties
and lease deed placed on record, provision of law, precedent on this
point and discussion made above, I am of the view that a
relationship of tenant and landlord has been admitted by the parties
and rent was Rs.43,725/ p.m. and the tenancy was terminated as
the lease deed got expired by efflux of time on 14.12.10. The
judgment relied upon by the defendant is not applicable in the
present case as the facts of this case are different. Relying upon the
judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court titled as "C. Albert Morris v. K.
Chandrasekaran, (2006) 1 SCC 228" it can be easily concluded
that since no fresh lease deed was executed between the parties
after the expiry of previous lease by efflux of time on 14.12.2010 and
mere acceptance of rent after the termination of lease 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
In another judgment titled as Delhi Jal Board v. Surendra
P. Malik, 104 (2003) DLT 151 (DB), the Division Bench of Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi has held as under:
"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
CS No. 214/11 Page no. 9 of 16
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
In another judgment titled as Usha Rani Jain v. Nirulas Corner
House Private Limited, ILR (2005) II Delhi 349, Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi has held as under:
"17. Though a plea was taken in the 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..."
Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000
8. The scope of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was discussed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co.
Ltd. VS. Union Bank of India, reported as AIR 2000 SC 2740
and relevant para of judgment is as under:
"Para 12: As to the object of order 12 R 6, we
need not say anything more than what the
legislature itself has said when the said provision
came to be amended. In the objects and reasons
set out while amending the said rule, it is stated
that 'where a claim is admitted, the Court has
jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and
to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of
the rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy
judgment at least to the extent of the relief to
CS No. 214/11 Page no. 5 of 16
which according to the admission of the
defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. We should not
unduly narrow down the meaning of this rule as
the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy
judgment. where other party has made a plain
admission entitling the former to succeed, it
should apply and also wherever there is a clear
admission of facts in the fact of which, it is
impossible for the party making such admission to
succeed."
Ashok Chopra & Ors. vs Syndicate Bank & Anr. on 26 March, 2010
In another judgment titled as Ashok Chopra v. Syndicate
Bank, 169 (2010) DLT 361, Hon'ble High Court has 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;..."
Pakistan International Airlines vs Abaskar Consturctions Pvt. Ltd. on 15 November, 2011
In another judgment titled as Pakistan International
Airlines v. Abaskar Constructions Private Limited,
MANU/DE/4394/2011, Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
"21. Law is clear. If a lease is evidence by a
CS No. 214/11 Page no. 11 of 16
contract in writing, as in the instant case, the
duration of the lease would be as per the contract
and at the expiry of the lease period, as per
contract the lease expires by efflux of time. Expiry
of lease by efflux of time results in the
determination of the relationship between the
lessor and the lessee and since the lease expires
under the contract by efflux of time, no notice of
determination of the lease is required."
Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Inmacs Ltd. vs Prema Sinha & Ors. on 26 September, 2008
In another judgment titled as Inmacs Limited v. Prema
Sinha, 153 (2008) DLT 311 (DB), the Division Bench of Hon'ble High
CS No. 214/11 Page no. 10 of 16
Court has held as under:
"13. ...If a lease is evidence by a contract, as in
the instant case, the duration of the lease would be
as per the contract and at the expiry of the lease
period as per contract the lease expires by efflux of
time. Expiry of lease by efflux of time results in the
determination of the relationship between the lessor
and the lessee and since the lease expires under
the contract by efflux of time, no notice of
determination of the lease is required."