Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)

Smt. Shanti Devi vs Amal Kumar Banerjee on 9 January, 1981

10. There are different modes of determination of lease as also the duration of the term of notice Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act provides various modes, which include also a notice under Section 106, as would be evident from the wordings of Section 111(h). Section 108 speaks about righ and liabilities of the lessor and lessee both during the period of continuance of the lease as also on its expiration. In a fixed term period of lease, the notice to quit is inbuilt, that is, the day when the lease expires and no notice under Section l08 of the Transfer of Property Act is required and the duty of the lessee is to restore possession as contemplated under Section 108(m). The view taken by me is in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pooran Chand v. Moti Lal and Ors. and Smt. Shanni Devi v. Amal Kumar Banerjee AIR 1981 SC 1550.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 85 - Full Document

Mithilesh Kumari & Anr vs Prem Behari Khare on 14 February, 1989

In the case of Mithilesh Kumar and Anr. v. Prem Behari Khare , it was held that Act 45 of 1988 will apply to pending appeal as well because it is a prohibitory legislation and will apply both where right is sought to be established as well as where right is resisted on the ground of Bsnatni. It is, therefore, manifest that the plaintiff is debarred from contending that the real title vests in him and he is the real lessor and his mother was an ostensible owner of the property and a mere name lender who executed the deed of lease in favour of the defendant appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 419 - K N Saikia - Full Document
1   2 Next