Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)
Badri Dass And Anr. vs Mahabir Pershad on 16 August, 1976 cites

Badrilal vs Municipal Corporation Of Indore on 6 December, 1972

In Badrilal v. Municipal Corporation of Indore, , the Supreme Court, after noticing the observations of the Federal Court quoted above as well as the observations in another decision of the Supreme Court in Bhawanji Lakhamashi v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani, , held that a person who was lawfully in occupation did not become a trespasser even if he was not holding over, but he was a tenant at sufferance. In my opinion, the correct legal position is that the appellants were tenants, whose term of tenancy had expired by afflux of time and so they continued to be tenants at sufferance by sheer laches of the landlord and the appellants had neither acquired any rights of the tenants nor had they become trespassers, since their possession at the inception was lawful.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 30 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

Bhawanji Lakhamhi & Ors vs Himatlal Jamnadas Dani & Ors on 14 December, 1971

In Badrilal v. Municipal Corporation of Indore, , the Supreme Court, after noticing the observations of the Federal Court quoted above as well as the observations in another decision of the Supreme Court in Bhawanji Lakhamashi v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani, , held that a person who was lawfully in occupation did not become a trespasser even if he was not holding over, but he was a tenant at sufferance. In my opinion, the correct legal position is that the appellants were tenants, whose term of tenancy had expired by afflux of time and so they continued to be tenants at sufferance by sheer laches of the landlord and the appellants had neither acquired any rights of the tenants nor had they become trespassers, since their possession at the inception was lawful.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 126 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Vatsavaya Venkata Subhadrayamma vs Poosapati Venkatapati on 5 May, 1924

(11) Under the terms of the contract of tenancy the tenant was bound to restore possession to the landlord. This is expressly provided in the contract of tenancy (Ex. P5). This is also clear from clause (q) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, which provides that on the determination of the lease, the lessee is bound to put the Lesser in possession of the property. The obligation to restore possession of the property to the landlord, therefore, arises under the lease and is an obligation which must be performed by the lessee. The Lesser can enforce it and the lessee is not excused from performing his contractual obligations by committing breach of terms of the lease, since nobody can be excused from performing his obligations by committing breach, (See: Sri Rajah Vatsavaya Subhadrayyamma v. Venkatapati Raju, Air 1924 Privy Council 162(4). Nor had the landlord by sheer laches in filing the suit lost his right to obtain eviction of tenants, who had no right to stick to possession on the expiry of the lease. The landlord was certainly entitled to enforce the covenants of the lease, which come into play on the expiry of the lease. The suit for ejectment was, therefore, clearly maintainable. The contention is accordingly rejected.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Bilas Kunwar vs Desraj Ranjit Singh And Ors. on 13 July, 1915

(12) The next contention is equally devoid of force. There is no doubt that the appellants had taken the land in dispute on rent from the respondent and so under Section 116 of the Evidence Act the appellants are estopped from challenging the title of the respondent unless and until they have restored possession to the landlord (See : Mt. Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh, Air 1915 Privy Council 96 at 98)(5). It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent landlord had lost his old title to the property after the commencement of the tenancy. At all events, this point is, in the circumstances of the case, merely of academic interest and docs not touch the merits of the case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 376 - Full Document
1