Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.75 seconds)

Hatimullah And Ors. vs Mahamad Abju Choudhury on 6 July, 1927

We may quote with advantage the law as stated by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Hatimullah and Ors. Vs. Mahamad Abju Choudhury, AIR 1928 Calcutta 312. It was held, "the principle of forfeiture by disclaimer is that where the tenant denies the landlord's title to recover rent from him bona-fide on the ground of seeking information of such title or having such title established in a Court of law in order to protect himself, he is not to be charged with disclaiming the landlord's title. But where the disclaimer is done not with this object but with an express repudiation of the tenancy under the landlord, it would operate as forfeiture".
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Dilbagrai Punjabi vs Sharad Chandra on 8 August, 1988

In Dilbagrai Punjabi Vs. Sharad Chandra (1988) Supp SCC 710, this Court held that it was essential to sustain a claim of eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act to establish that the plaintiff was the owner of the premises. However, the Court upheld the ownership of the landlord having been proved on the basis of an admission of the ownership of the plaintiff made by the defendant in reply to notice given before the institution of the suit and the recital of the name of the plaintiff as the owner of the property contained in the receipts issued by the landlord to the tenant over a period of time. Thus, the burden of proving ownership in a suit between landlord and tenant where the landlord-tenant relationship is either admitted or proved is not so heavy as in a title suit and lesser quantum of proof may suffice than what would be needed in a suit based on title against a person setting up a contending title while disputing the title of the plaintiff. Nevertheless pleading and proving ownership, in the sense as it carries in Rent Control Law, is one of the ingredients of the ground under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 121 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Majati Subbarao vs P.K.K. Krishna Rao (Deceased) By Lrs on 19 September, 1989

However, it has to be borne in mind that since the consequences of applying the rule of determination by forfeiture of tenancy as a result of denial of landlord's title or disclaimer of tenancy by tenant are very serious, the denial or disclaimer must be in clear and unequivocal terms (See __ Majati Subbarao Vs. P.V.K. Krishna Rao (deceased) by Lrs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 66 - M H Kania - Full Document
1   2 Next