Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Satish Kumar vs Zarif Ahmed & Ors on 20 February, 1997
7. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that this petition does not warrant admission. It is well settled that a lease deed executed for month to month tenancy or for a period of 11 months, though reduced to writing may not require compulsory registration even if possession of tenanted premises might have been delivered to the tenant. For the aforementioned proposition, reliance could be placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Kumar v. Zarif Ahmed and Ors., 1997(3) S.C.C. 679. However, it is not true in cases where the lease deed is executed for year to year tenancy because it is equally well settled that such a lease-deed would require registration as envisaged by Section 17 of the 1908 Act read with Section 107 of 1882 Act.
Rajendra Pratap Singh vs Rameshwar Prasad on 28 October, 1998
For the aforementioned proposition, reliance could be placed on three judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Rajendra Pratap Singh v. Rameshwar Prasad, 1998(7) S.C.C. 602; Budh Ram v. Ralla Ram, 1987(4) S.C.C. 75 and Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons, 2000(6) S.C.C. 394. In the present case, the lease was admittedly for a period of one year and, therefore, it would require registration for becoming admissible in evidence. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Appellate Authority warranting interference of this Court.
Budh Ram vs Ralla Ram Deceased Through Lrs on 19 August, 1987
For the aforementioned proposition, reliance could be placed on three judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Rajendra Pratap Singh v. Rameshwar Prasad, 1998(7) S.C.C. 602; Budh Ram v. Ralla Ram, 1987(4) S.C.C. 75 and Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons, 2000(6) S.C.C. 394. In the present case, the lease was admittedly for a period of one year and, therefore, it would require registration for becoming admissible in evidence. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Appellate Authority warranting interference of this Court.
Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh And Anr. vs Shri Rati Ram on 27 April, 1963
8. The findings on the change of user are that there is no machinery installed in the demised shop. The tenant-respondent has, however, started selling stationery items like note-books etc. instead of cloth. Even when the benefit of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh v. Rati Ram, 1969 Unreported Judgments (S.C.)
Rai Chand Jain vs Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla on 15 November, 1990
86 and Rai Chand Jain v. Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla, 1991(1) S.C.C. 422 is granted to the landlord-petitioner of reading the lease-deed for a collateral purpose under Section 49 of 1908 Act, still the change of user from cloth merchant to stationery merchant would not be such a change of user as to require any written consent of the landlord-petitioner. The nature of the user of premises continues to be the same and instead of cloth, the tenant-respondent has started selling the stationery items. In the present time of fast changing world, switching over from one business to another without harming the nature of use of the premises has to be considered permissible without being hit by the mischief of Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act.
M/S. Atul Castings Ltd vs Bawa Gurvachan Singh on 20 April, 2001
10. When the principles laid down in Gurdial Batra's case (supra) and Atul Castings Ltd. 's case (supra) are applied to the facts of the present case, then it becomes evident that no prejudice is caused to the interest of the landlord-petitioner because some wooden shelves could be used for stocking the cloth where the tenant-respondent might have stocked the stationery items. Such a liberal approach would advance the object of the provision.