Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act 1949
Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed vs Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai on 22 October, 1963
I may just mention that in support: of the argument that a ntoice terminating the tenancy was necessary, the learned counsel for the appellants had relied on Vora Abbasabhi Alimahomed v. Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai, (4) in which decision section 12(1) of the Bombay Rents, Htoel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) fell for consideration, and Manujendra Dutt v. Purnedu Prosad Roy Chowdhury and tohers, (5) in which the statutes under consideration were the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act (2 of 1949) and the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act (6 of 1953). I need nto, however, express any opinion as to whether or nto those decisions govern the interpretation of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966
I may just mention that in support: of the argument that a ntoice terminating the tenancy was necessary, the learned counsel for the appellants had relied on Vora Abbasabhi Alimahomed v. Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai, (4) in which decision section 12(1) of the Bombay Rents, Htoel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) fell for consideration, and Manujendra Dutt v. Purnedu Prosad Roy Chowdhury and tohers, (5) in which the statutes under consideration were the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act (2 of 1949) and the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act (6 of 1953). I need nto, however, express any opinion as to whether or nto those decisions govern the interpretation of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Section 39 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961
In Ganga Dutt's case it was observed- "THEtenancy of the appellant was determined by efflux of time and subsequent occupation by him was nto in pursuance of any contract express or implied, but was by virtue of the prtoection given by the successive statutes. This occupation did nto confer any rights upon the appellant and was nto required to be determined by a ntoice prescribed by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act."
1