Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Om Prakash And Others vs Ram Kumar And Others on 30 November, 1990
14. The said provision was considered by the Supreme Court
in the case of Om Prakash versus Ram Kumar reported in (1991)1
SCC 441, and it was held that a relief not claimed and prayed for,
cannot be granted, if granting the said relief would result in affecting
rights and cause prejudice to an interested party. The plaintiff had
occasion but did not taken any step to add or amend the plaint and
make a prayer for grant of damages in the plaint. It would not be
appropriate to decide the question of damages, without any claim or
prayer made in the plaint. The issue is accordingly decided and not
answered. No relief can be granted to the plaintiff.
Harshavardhan Chokkani vs Bhupendra N. Patel And Ors on 28 February, 2002
15. Memorandum of Understanding, Exhibit P-1 is
between the plaintiff and the defendant. M/s. Sabbineni Hotels and
Resorts Pvt. Ltd. is not a party to the said Memorandum of
Understanding. The rent may have paid from the bank account of
M/s. Sabbineni Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. but that by itself does not
make M/s. Sabbineni Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. a tenant. It is well
established that payment of rent by a third person does not make the
CS(OS) No.170/2003 Page No.11
said third person a tenant (refer, Harshvardhan Chokkani versus
Bhupendra N. Patel reported in (2002) 3 SCC 626). Tenancy is as a
result of contractual relationship between two parties, who must be
ad idem. PW-1 and PW-2 in their affidavits have stated that Mr. S.
Subhash, the defendant was the tenant and they had not entered into
in an agreement with M/s. Sabbineni Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Written document i.e Memorandum of Understanding, Exhibit P-1
supports their stand.
Pandit Kishan Lal vs Ganpat Ram Khosla And Another on 17 April, 1961
20. Mere acceptance of rent from the assignee by itself is not
enough to release the lessee or establishes relinquishment of
tenancy. The lessee continues to be liable to pay rent because the
lessee cannot by an unilateral act put an end to his contractual
CS(OS) No.170/2003 Page No.14
obligations. Privity of contract exists between the lessor and the
lessee. Assignment of the lease does not prejudice the personal
contract between the lessee and the lessor and accordingly the
lessee remains liable on the covenant for payment of rent and the
other covenants on his part contained in the lease unless the lease
otherwise provides; but as regards the covenants which run with the
land, the assignee also becomes liable to the lessor by reason of
privity of estate. The liability of the lessee to the lessor continues
notwithstanding that the lease has been assigned and that the lessor
has a remedy against the assignee for the rent and on the covenants
running with land. The remedy as against the lessee is founded on
privity of contract; and as against the assignee on privity of estate.
(Refer, Kishan Lal versus Ganpat Ram Khosla reported in AIR
(1961) SC 1554 and Treasurer of Charitable Endowments versus
S.F.B. Tyabji reported in (1948) BOMLR 240 DB).
Treasurer Of Charitable Endowments vs S.F.B. Tyabji on 10 February, 1948
20. Mere acceptance of rent from the assignee by itself is not
enough to release the lessee or establishes relinquishment of
tenancy. The lessee continues to be liable to pay rent because the
lessee cannot by an unilateral act put an end to his contractual
CS(OS) No.170/2003 Page No.14
obligations. Privity of contract exists between the lessor and the
lessee. Assignment of the lease does not prejudice the personal
contract between the lessee and the lessor and accordingly the
lessee remains liable on the covenant for payment of rent and the
other covenants on his part contained in the lease unless the lease
otherwise provides; but as regards the covenants which run with the
land, the assignee also becomes liable to the lessor by reason of
privity of estate. The liability of the lessee to the lessor continues
notwithstanding that the lease has been assigned and that the lessor
has a remedy against the assignee for the rent and on the covenants
running with land. The remedy as against the lessee is founded on
privity of contract; and as against the assignee on privity of estate.
(Refer, Kishan Lal versus Ganpat Ram Khosla reported in AIR
(1961) SC 1554 and Treasurer of Charitable Endowments versus
S.F.B. Tyabji reported in (1948) BOMLR 240 DB).
Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co vs Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors on 23 March, 1976
27. After the defendant was served, a proxy counsel had appeared
before the Court on 20th March 2003 and stated that the plaintiff being
in possession there was no urgency in the case. It was also stated
that being a proxy counsel he did not have clear instructions to make
the statement. Thereafter, the defendant filed his written statement on
6th May, 2003 stating that he was not in possession and the suit
property was in possession and occupation of the plaintiff. In these
circumstances, 6th May, 2003 will be treated as the date of surrender
of possession of the property by the defendant. I may observe here
that abandonment of tenancy does not end landlord tenant
relationship. The tenancy agreement is bilateral and tenancy rights
can be surrendered by a bilateral agreement which may be express
or implied (See, Section 111, Clauses (e) and (f) of Transfer of
Property Act). Abandonment of tenancy being a unilateral act does
CS(OS) No.170/2003 Page No.20
not result in surrender of tenancy and a tenant is liable to pay rent till
there is surrender of tenancy which brings the landlord tenant
relationship to an end. (See, in this regard, observations of the
Supreme Court in the case of Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co.
versus Nagappa Shankarappa Malage reported in AIR 1976 SC
1565).