Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (7.04 seconds)Mahabir Gope And Others vs Harbans Narain Singh And Others on 14 April, 1952
11. All the cases referred to above, it is worthy of note, were cases of agricultural lands and in each of those cases, the question was examined from two angles, me, whether the tenancy created was referable to prudent management of the agricultural property, and the other, whether the rights of the tenant inducted by the mortgagee with possession had been enlarged as a result of a special stature dealing with the rights of tenants of agricultural lands. We will now proceed to refer to those cases where the effect of a tenancy created over nonagricultural properties, especially in urban areas, was considered.
Tajammul Husain vs Mir Khan And Ors. on 22 February, 1974
Secondly, the debate, before the learned Judge had not been as comprehensive as it has been before us. Since we have held that we cannot share the view taken by the Full Bench in Tajammul Husain v. Mir Khan, (FB) and that the ratio contained in Chandra Bekharan v. Kunju Vanniar, (FB) is confined only to cases arising under the C. T. P. Act, we hold that Durai Knitting Co. v. Ramasubramanian, (1976) I Mad LJ 351, does not set out the correct view and hence we overruled the same.
The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
Section 2 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
G. Ponniah Thevar vs Nellayam Perumal Pillai And Others on 15 December, 1976
21. Likewise in Ponniah v. Perumal , also, it has been specifically pointed out that the rights of parties were not being determined with reference to any general or personal law, but solely with reference to the terms contained in the C. T. P. Act. In such circumstances, the judgments also do not afford scope for Mr. Narayanaswami to contend that the ratio laid down in those cases must unreservedly be extended to non-agricultural leases created by mortgagees with possession.
Durai Knitting Co., By Its Partner R. ... vs E. Ramasubramanian And Anr. on 6 October, 1975
Secondly, the debate, before the learned Judge had not been as comprehensive as it has been before us. Since we have held that we cannot share the view taken by the Full Bench in Tajammul Husain v. Mir Khan, (FB) and that the ratio contained in Chandra Bekharan v. Kunju Vanniar, (FB) is confined only to cases arising under the C. T. P. Act, we hold that Durai Knitting Co. v. Ramasubramanian, (1976) I Mad LJ 351, does not set out the correct view and hence we overruled the same.
Chinnappa Thevan And Ors. vs Pazhaniappa Pillai on 8 November, 1915
27. Before we sum up our conclusion we can conveniently deal with some of the other contentions raised by the appellant's counsel. On the basis of Chinnappa Thevan v. Pazhaniappa Pillai AIR 1916 Mad 911, it was argued that. Tenancies created by a mortgagee in possession are binding on the mortgagor even after the redemption of the mortgage in so far as the relationship of landlord and tenant continues. Undoubtedly, that was the ratio laid down in that case. But the facts of that case were totally different. The tenant therein set up, an extreme contention that. since he had been inducted on the land by the mortgagee, his possession subsequent to the redemption of the mortgage was hostile in character. vis-a-vis the mortgagor,and hence he had perfected title by adverse possession. It was in that situation,' the Division Bench held that he continued to be a tenant of the land and hence he had not perfected title. by adverse possession. The decision has been rendered .on the footing that on the redemption of the mortgage it was open to the mortgagor to affirm the tenancy created by the mortgagee with possession or call upon the tenant to surrender possession and, as long as such an option had not ,been exercised, the tenant could not put forth a plea of adverse possession. In the instant case, the appellant does not claim tenancy rights under the mortgagor, nor does he put forward a case of adverse possession. On the other hand, what he contends is that by reason of statutory intervention his tenancy rights are protected even though his landlord's (Mortgagee's) transitory titie over the property came to a close with the redemption of the mortgage.