Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Syed Jaleel Zane vs P. Venkata Murlidhar And Ors. on 14 March, 1980
21. In Ex.A-8, it is true, the lessor had permitted the lessee to put up structures not for any residential purpose but for carrying on business in petroleum products during the term of the lease. The term was fixed and the purpose for which the structures were required to be put up also was stated. Therefore, the precedent relied upon by Sri Raghava Rao cannot be considered as an authority for the proposition that in every case where permission was accorded by the lessor to the lessee to put up structures on the demised land, it becomes a lease in perpetuity. The other rulings cited by Sri Raghava Rao have been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Syed Jaleel Zane's case (1 supra) and, therefore, we do not think it necessary to consider them separately.
Sivayogeswara Cotton Press,Devangere ... vs M. Panchaksharappa And Another on 27 September, 1961
20. Stating the rule as an inflexible one that in every case where there is permission for the lessee to put up structures, the lease must be construed as one in perpetuity, Sri Raghava Rao has placed reliance upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in Sivayogeswara Cotton Press v. Panchakshamppa, which, in our opinion, is misconceived .The lease deed in that case did not contain any fixed period and the land which was the subject matter of lease was to be utilised for construction of buildings. The presumption in such a case according to the Supreme Court was that the lease was intended to create a permanent tenancy.
Bavasaheb Walad Mansursaheb Kotri And ... vs West Patent Press Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 July, 1953
The Supreme Court approved the observations of Gajendra Gadkar, J., (as he then was) in Bavasaheb Walad Mansursaheb Korti v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd., , wherein it was held:
A.J. D'Souza, Commissioner Of Income ... vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. on 23 April, 1985
19. One other submission made by Sri Koka Raghava Rao is that the Court is empowered to determine the fair rent for the renewed period of lease in the absence of mutuality and for the said proposition, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in D.T. Mangahnurti v. State of Bombay, . In that case, the clause provided for renewal "subject to such fair rent", which was interpreted by the Court as conferring jurisdiction on the Court to determine the fair rent.
1