Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.43 seconds)Section 116 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
Navnitlal Chunilal vs Baburao (No. 2) on 3 July, 1944
-- 'Navnitlal Chunilal v. Baburao (No. 1)', AIR 1945 Bom 132 at p. 134 (J) of the Report is not altogether unjustified.
Manindra Nath De vs Man Singh on 14 February, 1950
In support of his view, the learned Subordinate Judge has cited the decision of Sarkar J., in the case of -- 'Manindra Nath v. Man Singh' (A), as also the more recent case of this Court -- 'Sm. Sailabala Dassee v. H. A. Tappassier' (B) (Per Das Gupta J.).
Section 111 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Baldeodas Mahavirprasad vs G.P. Sonavalla on 8 January, 1948
A similar view of the law was also expressed by Das Gupta J. in the other case--' (B)', cited in the judgment of the lower appellate Court, and I am inclined to think that, broadly speaking, the general law of waiver of notice to quit, as laid down by my learned brothers Das Gupta J. and Sarkar J. in the two cases, cited above, and by the Bombay High Court in -- 'AIR 1948 Bom 385 (L)', is correct. In the case before P. B. Mukherji J., -- '83 Cal LJ 329 (D)', there was clear evidence of a fresh agreement of tenancy and, although one may not agree with every thing that was said in that judgment, no legitimate exception can possibly be taken to the summing up of the learned Judge at page 337. of the Report that
"Each case has to be judged on its own facts and merits keeping in view the fundamental principle that waiver is an intentional relin-quishment of a known right which I consider to be the basic foundation of the law on this point."
Sm. Sailabala Dassee vs H.A. Tappassier on 1 August, 1951
In support of his view, the learned Subordinate Judge has cited the decision of Sarkar J., in the case of -- 'Manindra Nath v. Man Singh' (A), as also the more recent case of this Court -- 'Sm. Sailabala Dassee v. H. A. Tappassier' (B) (Per Das Gupta J.).
Manicklal Dey Chaudhuri vs Kadambini Dassi on 10 December, 1925
He has also in his judgment referred to two other decisions of this Court, cited before him, viz., -- 'Maniklal Dey v. Kadambini Dassi', AIR 1926 Cal 763 (C) and -- 'Surendra Chandra Majumdar v. Sm. panchi Bibi', 83 Cal LJ 328 (D) and he has held them distinguishable from the present case. On the facts before me I am clearly of the opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in overruling the defence contentions. I am not prepared to believe -- and the learned Subordinate Judge also obviously did not believe -- that the defendant's version as to the arrangement between the parties at the time of the relevant payment of rent is correct.
Bengal-Nagpur Railway Company, ... vs Firm Bal Mukunda Biseswar Lall on 20 February, 1923
Co. v. Firm Bal Mukunda Biseswar Lall', AIR 1923 Cal 663 (I), where at page 665 of the Report the learned Judges recognised that for cases coming under the Rent Control law illustration (a) of Section 113, Transfer of Property Act furnished no safe or absolute guide and in relation to such cases they expressly made the following observations, viz.,
"The mere fact that the landlord accepts rent
after giving the notice to quit cannot be taken
as a waiver by him of the notice to quit so
as to create a new tenancy" (vide the middle
paragraph of col. 1 of that page).
1