Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)Section 112 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Abdul Rahim vs Md. Azimuddin on 14 September, 1964
The ground of forfeiture relied upon by the plaintiff in Abdul Rahim v. Md. Azimuddin was breach of the condition of tenancy. The Courts recorded their finding in favour of the plaintiff that the defendant had committed forfeiture of tenancy by nonpayment of rent and use of the premises for purposes other than keeping hotel. These findings were not challenged in the High Court and the only question raised was that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to bring the suit as he had not determined the lease by giving a notice in writing. This decision therefore, had no occasion to consider a case of forfeiture on the basis of the second condition mentioned in Clause (g).
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The State Of Bihar And Anr. vs Saubhagya Sundari Devi And Ors. on 17 August, 1971
9. On the question, whether the time granted by the notice to quit was reasonable or not, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision in State of Bihar v. Saubhagya Sundari Devi, (AIR 1972 Pat 200). This question has not been raised in the written statement and as it is not a pure question of law, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise it at the second appellate stage for the first time.
Section 11 in The Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
1