Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.28 seconds)Mohan Sons (Bombay) Private Ltd. vs Lady Sonoo Jamatji Jejeebhoy And Ors. on 24 October, 1974
In Mohan Sons (Bombay) P. Ltd. v. Lady Sonoo Jamsetji Jejebhoy, , it has been held that the party which has given exclusive possession but contends that the agreement was a bare agreement of leave and licence must show why he gave exclusive possession. No such evidence has been adduced on behalf of the plaintiff in the instant case.
Inderjeet Singh Sial And Anr vs M/S. Karam Chand Thapar And Ors on 25 September, 1995
In Inderjeet Singh Sial v. Karam Chand Thapar, , the Apex Court observed :
Board Of Revenue Etc vs A. M. Ansari Etc on 17 March, 1976
In Board of Revenue v. A.M. Ansari, , the Apex Court stated (at p. 1817):
Puran Singh Sahni vs Smt. Sundari Bhagwandas Kripalani And ... on 20 February, 1991
34. Reference in this connection may also be made to Puran Singh v. S.B. Kripalani, wherein the Apex Court has led emphasis on the fact that if the intention is to create interest in the property, it would be a lease as licence does not create any interest in the property.
Capt. B.V.D Souza vs Antonio Fausto Fernandes on 1 August, 1989
B.V. D'Souza v. Antonio Fausto Fernandes, wherein L. M. Sharma, J. (as his Lordship then was) while construing an agreement labelled as leave and licence in the light of the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1986 held (Para 3 of AIR) :--
Associated Hotels Of India Ltd vs R. N. Kapoor on 19 May, 1959
"However, this cannot answer the disputed issue as it creates a licence or lease, the substance of the document must be referred to the form. As was observed by this Court in Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor, , the real test is the intention of the parties -- whether they intended to create a lease or licence. If an interest in the property is created by the deed it is a lease but if the document only permits another person to make use of the property "of which the legal possession continues with the owner" it is a licence. If the party in whose favour the document is executed gets exclusive possession of the property prima facie he must be considered to be a tenant: although -this factor by itself will not be decisive. Judged in this light, there does not appear to be any scope for interpreting Ex. 20 as an agreement of leave and licence."
Smt. Rajbir Kaur & Anr vs S. Chokesiri & Co on 9 August, 1988
was a member upon taking into consideration some of the aforementioned decisions as also Smt. Rajbir Kaur v. S. Chokosiri & Co., , Vallabh Das v. Dr. Madanlal, , Roop Chand v. Gopi Chand, observed :
Kidar Nath vs Swami Parshad And Ors. on 21 September, 1977
In Kidar Nath v. Swami Parshad, reported in AIR 1978 Punj & Har 204, it has been held that where exclusive possession of the premises had been given a certain sum of money in every month is payable and the party in possession had the right to instal machinery and had the electric meter in his name and to make repair the premises, the same would be a case of lease and not a licence.
J. Mc. Gaffin And Anr. vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 8 March, 1977
50.In J. Mc. Gaffin v. LIC of India, reported in (1977) 81 Cal WN 629, the defence of the defendant was that a caretaker had been appointed. The learned judge held :--