Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Section 51 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 108 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Achayya vs Hanumantrayudu And Anr. on 24 February, 1891
Section 108 provides that the lessor is bound on the lessee's request to put him in possession of the property and further provides that the benefit of; such contract shall be annexed to, and go with the lessee's interest as such, and may be enforced by every person in whom that interest is for the whole or any part thereof from time to time vested. There can therefore be no doubt that the lessee is entitled to enforce his right to obtain possession of the land leased to him so that he may enjoy its usufruct. There seems to be no reason why he should not be allowed to enforce his right against another person who is holding under his lessor who is bound to put him in possession. The defendant's lease terminated automatically. A. Bench of the Madras High Court in Achayya v. Hanumantrayudu (1891) 14 Mad. 269 came to the same conclusion on general grounds and independently of the express provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.
Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Maharajah Ranjit Singh Bahadur vs Maharaj Bahadur Singh on 16 April, 1918
5. It was held that the two stipulations did not take away from the lessee the ordinary rights that he had, viz. of being put into possession and in default thereof, claiming a rescission of the contract. All these cases show that the lessee acquires under a registered lease a right which he can enforce by a suit for possession over the leased property against the lessor as well as against a third person who might happen to be in possession over it. In Ranjit Singh v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh (1918) 5 A.I.R. P.C. 85, the respondent was a patnidar of half and a darpatnidar of the other half of the village of Gopalpur and patnidar of six other villages within the zamindari of the appellant. Some of the lands in this village included in the patnis and darpatnis were formerly held as chaukidari chakran lands, but in June 1898, these lands were all resumed by the Collector under the Bengal Act 6 of 1870 and then transferred to the appellant. On resumption of the lands by the Government and their transfer to the zamindar as provided by the Bengal Act 6 of 1870, the patnidar or the darpatnidar was entitled under Section 51 to possession of the chaukidari chakran lands. The contention of the patnidar was that the plaintiff's suit being one to enforce contractual rights it was one for specific performance and Article 113 applied. Their Lordships of the Privy Council observed:
Md. Fazihzzaman vs Anwar Husain on 30 June, 1931
This case was followed in Mohad Fazihzzaman v. Anwar Husain 1932 19 A.I.R. All. 314. There the defendant obtained a lease of a house for a period of ten years. A few months before the expiry of the lease the lessor executed another lease in favour of the plaintiff for u, further period of ten years. The second lease was to take effect a few days after the expiry of the first lease. As the first lessee, whose lease determined by efflux of time under Section 111(a), T.P. Act, was holding over, the second lessee brought a suit for ejectment of the first lessee from the house. It was held:
1