Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)
Baboo Lal vs Smt. Shiv Kumari And Anr. on 25 February, 2005 cites

Shri Harish Tandon vs The Addl.District Magistrate, ... on 5 January, 1995

In Harish Tandon's case, the Apex Court has clearly held that after death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenants jointly. The incidence of the tenancy are the same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs and there is no division of the premises or of the rent payable therefor and the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. In this view of the matter, it is crystal clear that after death of Basant Lal, his widow and sons became joint tenants alongwith petitioner of the premises in question. Admittedly, Ram Autar purchased a house in Usmanpur Colony Juhi Gaushala Kanpur. It means, the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act was attracted which provides in clear word that in the case of residential building if a tenant or any member of his family builds or otherwise acquires a residential building in the same City, he shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 144 - N P Singh - Full Document

Anandi D.Jadhav (Dead) By Lrs vs Nirmala Ramchandra Kore & Ors on 5 April, 2000

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned judgment and has contended with vehemence that after death of Mahabir Prasad, his widow Smt. Cheta became tenant of the premises in question. After her death, her two sons Baboo Lal and Basant Lal became tenants. Basant Lal also died leaving behind his widow and his two sons Ram Autar and Shyam Kumar. Admittedly, Ram Autar has purchased a house in the name of his wife in Usmanpur Colony, Juhi, Gaushala Kanpur. He has relied on two decisions of the Apex Court in Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and Ors., 1995 (1) ARC, 220 and Anandi D. Jadhav (DEAD) BY LRS v. Nirmala Ramchandra Kore and Ors., (2000) 3 S.C.C., 703 : 2000 SCFBRC 245. According to him, the petitioner and his brother or nephews and brother's wife are not common tenants but under the law they inherited the tenancy from their father and they had occupied the disputed premises as joint tenants. Since one of the tenants has purchased a house in the same City, the Rent Control & Eviction Officer rightly declared vacancy as provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 21 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Madan Gopal Maheshwari vs District Judge, Mathura And Others on 26 April, 1999

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that original tenant was Mahabir Prasad and after his death his widow Smt. Cheta became tenant. She died in the year 1970. After her death, the rent receipt was issued in favour of the petitioner by the then landlord Balram Pathak. The respondent No. 1 wanted to enhance rent and pressurized him to do so. Since he failed to oblige her, the landlady wrongly intimated the vacancy to the authorities on the basis of wrong facts. He further submitted that the petitioner never removed his household effects from the premises in question and respondent No. 2 erred in declaring the vacancy. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Madan Gopal Maheshwari v. District Judge, Mathura and Ors., reported in 1999 (2) A.W.C., 1785.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Y Singh - Full Document
1