Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.47 seconds)M.B.Subramaniam vs A.Ramasamy Gounder ... 1St on 16 April, 2009
In 2009(3) CTC 59 (M.B.SUBRAMANIAM .vs. A.RAMASAMY GOUNDER, this Court has held as follows:
Tralok Chand And Anr. vs Arjun Singh And Ors. on 28 June, 1977
From the said decision, it is clear that the plea under section 116 is a question of fact and the same ought to have been raised before the trial court and the evidence also ought to have been adduced on the said pleading. But, in the instant case, as contended by the learned counsel for the 1st defendant, absolutely, there was no pleading in respect of the principle of holding over. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff cannot raise the plea under section 116 at the appellate stage. Had the plea with regard to assent of landlord been taken by the plaintiff before the trial court, the 1st respondent would have had a chance of meeting out the same. Therefore, looking at any angle, the plea under section 116 is a question of a fact and not a question of law. Moreover, in the instant case, the facts on record would show that when the plaintiff was called upon to sign a joint lease agreement, she refused to sign the joint lease agreement, which would amount to waiver. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to take a plea under section 116 at this length of time.
Md. Ahmed Amolia And Ors. vs Nirmal Chandra Roy And Ors. on 30 September, 1977
In AIR 1978 CALCUTTA 312 (MD.AHMED AMOLIA AND OTHERS ..vs.. NIRMAL CHANDRA ROY), it has been held as follows:
Tara Properties Private Limited vs Shalimar Paints Limited on 15 July, 2008
In AIR 2009 CALCUTTA 47 (TARA PROPERTIES PVT.LTD., v. SHALIMAR PAINTS LTD., (AIR 2009 CALCUTTA 47), the Head Notes are as follows:
Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 111 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 43 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ram Barai Singh vs Tirtha Pada Misra on 1 June, 1955
19. On a perusal of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in AIR (36) 1949 FEDERAL COURT 124 (KAI KHUSHROO BEZONJEE CAPADIA .vs. BAI JERBAI) and AIR 1957 CALCUTTA 173 (RAM BARAI SINGH .vs. TIRTHA PADA MISRA), I find that they would show that there is a landlord's assent to the possession of the property by the tenant by acceptance of rent, after the termination of lease and it would constitute a tenancy by holding over and under such circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for renewal of further lease. There is no quarrel with regard to the principle laid down in the said cases, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. But it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.