Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
N.M. Ponniah Nadar vs Kamalakshmi Ammal on 22 September, 1988
30. No doubt, as observed in N.M.Ponniah Nadar's case (supra) a mere increase or reduction of rent will not necessarily import a surrender of an existing lease and the grant of a new tenancy. Also, if on account of the variation in the quantum of rent any consequential change is made regarding the time and the manner of payment of rent it cannot have the effect of graver consequences being imported into the change of rent than what the parties had intended and warrant a finding by the Court that the parties had intended to create a new tenancy in supersession of the earlier one or that by operation of law a new tenancy has come into existence.
Section 116 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961
26. Pertaining to a contractual tenant, on contractual tenancy being determined but the landlord rendered helpless in the teeth of protection granted to tenants under rent control legislation, in the decision reported as Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Kartik Chandra Das and Ors. in para 5 it was observed as under:
Section 2 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 62 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
O. Bahree vs Rikhi Bros. on 19 November, 1992
25. A similar view was taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court reported as 1993 (25) DRJ 325 Shri O. Bahree v. Rikhi Bros.
1