Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.05 seconds)
Kanchan Wahi vs S. Inder Pal Singh on 7 October, 2024 cites

(Smt.) Smita Pandurang Dalvi, Of Bombay ... vs Ratnakar Dattatraya Patade, Of Bombay, ... on 26 February, 2002

" 15. On the question of tenancy, both the trial court and the High Court have not considered the provision of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:37:01 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 16 of 26 Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1259 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Currimbhoy And Company vs L.A. Creet on 22 November, 1932

Rule of estoppel which governs an owner of an immovable property and his tenant would also VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:37:29 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 19 of 26 mutatis mutandis govern a tenant and his sub-tenant in their relationship inter se. As held by the Privy Council in Currimbhoy & Co. Ltd. v. L.A. Creet [AIR 1933 PC 29 : 60 IA 297] and Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh [AIR 1915 PC 96 : 42 IA 202] the estoppel continues to operate so long as the tenant has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord. It follows that the rule of estoppel ceases to have applicability once the tenant has been evicted. His obligation to restore possession to his landlord is fulfilled either by actually fulfilling the obligation or by proving his landlord's title having been extinguished by his landlord's eviction by a paramount title-holder. Eviction by paramount title-holder is a good defence bringing to an end the obligation of the tenant to put the lessor in possession of the property under Section 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act. The burden of proving eviction by title paramount lies on the party who sets up such defence."
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

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

Rule of estoppel which governs an owner of an immovable property and his tenant would also VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:37:29 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 19 of 26 mutatis mutandis govern a tenant and his sub-tenant in their relationship inter se. As held by the Privy Council in Currimbhoy & Co. Ltd. v. L.A. Creet [AIR 1933 PC 29 : 60 IA 297] and Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh [AIR 1915 PC 96 : 42 IA 202] the estoppel continues to operate so long as the tenant has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord. It follows that the rule of estoppel ceases to have applicability once the tenant has been evicted. His obligation to restore possession to his landlord is fulfilled either by actually fulfilling the obligation or by proving his landlord's title having been extinguished by his landlord's eviction by a paramount title-holder. Eviction by paramount title-holder is a good defence bringing to an end the obligation of the tenant to put the lessor in possession of the property under Section 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act. The burden of proving eviction by title paramount lies on the party who sets up such defence."
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 376 - Full Document
1