Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)
Sardarilal vs Narayanlal on 13 March, 1979 cites

Puthiapurayil Kannyan Baduvan And Anr. vs Chennyanteakath Puthiapurayil ... on 26 March, 1919

None of these cases covers the point arising before us. The cases of Manikkam v. Rathnasami (supra) and Kannyan v. Alikutti (supra), which were strongly relied upon by the learned Advocate General, are clearly distinguishable. In the former case, the transfer by the lessor was of the entire property leased by a subsequent lease of 20 years and the subsequent lessee terminated the prior lease by a notice to quit. The question whether the transferee of a part of the property leased can terminate the tenancy did not arise for consideration in that case. In the latter case, the lease terminated by efflux of time and, therefore, the question whether the transferee of a part of the property leased could terminate the lease by a quit notice did not come up for consideration.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Manikkam Pillai vs Rathnasami Nadar And Ors. on 21 September, 1917

None of these cases covers the point arising before us. The cases of Manikkam v. Rathnasami (supra) and Kannyan v. Alikutti (supra), which were strongly relied upon by the learned Advocate General, are clearly distinguishable. In the former case, the transfer by the lessor was of the entire property leased by a subsequent lease of 20 years and the subsequent lessee terminated the prior lease by a notice to quit. The question whether the transferee of a part of the property leased can terminate the tenancy did not arise for consideration in that case. In the latter case, the lease terminated by efflux of time and, therefore, the question whether the transferee of a part of the property leased could terminate the lease by a quit notice did not come up for consideration.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

B.P. Pathak vs Dr. Riyazuddin And Ors. on 9 October, 1975

on the same date for ejectment of Sardarilal. ' The suit filed by Narayanlal relates to the half portion purchased by him, and similarly the suit filed by Mohanlal relates to the other half portion purchased by him. The appellant Sardarilal in both the suits challenged the validity of the notices terminating his tenancy. It was contended by him that a transferee of a part of the leased property could not alone terminate the tenancy with respect to the part transferred to him; and as the notices were separate notices with respect to the parts transferred to each of the transferees, the notices were invalid. This contention was negatived by the trial Court, and both the suits were decreed. The decrees were upheld by the first appellate Court. Sardarilal then filed these second appeals. The same contention was repeated before Sohani J. when the appeals came up for hearing before him. The point was concluded against the appellant by a Division Bench decision in B.P. Pathak v. Dr. Riyazuddin (1976 MPLJ 9 : AIR 1976 Madh Pra 55). Sohani J., however, was of opinion that the said decision required, reconsideration by a Full Bench. It is for this reason that he made this reference.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Nanalal Girdharlal And Anr. vs Gulamnabi Jamalbhai Motorwala And Ors. on 2 March, 1972

We have earlier pointed out that the words "any part of his interest therein" as used in Section 109 do not refer to any fractional share but only to an interest which is not the entire interest of the lessor but something less than that; for example, where the lessor, instead of selling the property leased or a part thereof, mortgages or leases the same it would be said that he has transferred a part of his interest therein. Cases where there is only a transfer of a fractional share in the property leased or in a part thereof would be governed by Section 37 and not by Section 109. A transferee of a share in the property leased or in any part thereof will become a co-owner with the lessor and will stand in the same position as a co-lessor. It is well settled -- and this legal position is not disputed before us -- that a co-lessor cannot terminate the lease and that an effective quit notice for terminating the lease has to be given on behalf of all the co-lessors. (See Nanalal V. G. J. Motorwala (AIR 1973 Guj 131 (FB)); Abdul Hamid v. Bhuwaneshwar Prasad (AIR 1953 Nag 18)). The difficulty in the construction pointed out by Shri Sanghi, therefore, does not arise if Section 109 is so understood.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 55 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Madho Singh Daulat Singh vs State Of Bombay (Through Secretary Home ... on 13 July, 1959

Reliance was also placed upon the cases of Smt. Durga-rani Devi v. Mohiuddin, ((1950) 86 Cal LJ 198); Daulat Singh v. State of Bombay, (1957 Nag LJ 625) and Ram Charan v. State of U. P., ((1969) Rent CR 855) (All). These cases do support the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. But, with great respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken in them. The cases do not give due importance to the fact that Section 109 provides for apportionment of rent without the consent of the lessee indicating severance of tenancy. The cases also take too narrow a view of the words "all the rights" of the lessor as used in Section 109. For the reasons' given earlier by us, we respectfully dissent from the view taken in these cases.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next