Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)Nalakath Sainuddin vs Koorikadan Sulaiman on 8 July, 2002
I have gone through the judgment proposed by brother
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. I find myself in agreement with the
conclusion arrived at by him and also with the reasonings
assigned by him excepting for his opinion formed on the case of
Nalakath Sainuddin v. Koorikadan Sulaiman (2002) 6 SCC
1, with which opinion I have not been able to pursuade myself to
agree and in that regard I am constrained to record my separate
opinion.
Mohar Singh (Dead By Lrs.) vs Devi Charan & Others on 9 May, 1988
(ii) that Section 109 of the TP Act does away with the need
for consensual attornment. The attornment is brought
about by operation of law. The limitation on the right of
the landlord against splitting up of the integrity of the
tenancy, inhering in the inhibitions of his own contract,
does not visit the assignee of the part of the reversion.
The severance of the reversion and the assignment of
the part so severed do not need the consent of the
tenant. [See Mohar Singh (dead) by LRs v. Devi
Charan & Ors., (1988) 3 SCC 63]
Ownership of the property which is the subject matter of
tenancy is certainly a larger estate than the tenancy itself and
naturally larger than the sub-tenancy. If the sub-tenant
acquires the entire interest of the owner in the whole of the
estate forming the subject matter of sub-tenancy, the sub-
tenancy merges into ownership and the estate of sub-tenant
stands enlarged into that of a full owner. The sub-tenant cannot
be the owner and the sub-tenant both at the same time.
Badri Narain Jha And Others vs Rameshwar Dayal Singh And Others on 5 February, 1951
Of
course, the situation would have been different if the sub-tenant
would not have acquired the entire estate of the owner or the
ownership interest in the entire estate forming subject matter of
sub-lease, as was the case in Badri Narain Jha & Ors. v.
Rameshwar Dayal Singh & Ors. AIR 1951 SC 186 or in
Shaikh Faqir Bakhsh v. Murli Dhar & Ors. AIR 1931 PC 63.
Faqir Baksh vs Murli Dhar on 13 January, 1931
Of
course, the situation would have been different if the sub-tenant
would not have acquired the entire estate of the owner or the
ownership interest in the entire estate forming subject matter of
sub-lease, as was the case in Badri Narain Jha & Ors. v.
Rameshwar Dayal Singh & Ors. AIR 1951 SC 186 or in
Shaikh Faqir Bakhsh v. Murli Dhar & Ors. AIR 1931 PC 63.
Indra Perfumery Co. And Ors. vs Moti Lal Lalu Mal And Anr. on 13 October, 1966
The decision of two-Judges Bench of this Court in Indra
Perfumery v. Moti Lal & Ors. (1969) 2 SCWR 967 was not
brought to the notice of the two-Judges Bench deciding
Nalakath Sainuddin's case (supra); else the former decision
would have certainly received consideration of the Court in the
latter case. I propose to deal with these two cases.
1