Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.31 seconds)Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
Section 10 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 111 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Puwada Venkateswara Rao vs Chidamana Venkata Ramana on 8 March, 1976
14. Learned counsel has submitted that, while considering similar provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, XV of 1960, the Supreme Court, in Puwala Venkateswara Rao v. Chidamana Venkata Ramana has held the Act to be a complete code providing the procedure for eviction and has further held that prior notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the lease is not necessary before filing a petition for eviction under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Act. It is true that in that case the question that arose for consideration was whether a lease should be determined by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before filing a petition for eviction of the tenant under the Andhra Pradesh Act. After referring to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Act, the Supreme Court observed as follows. (Paragraph 4):
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent And Eviction) Control Act, 1960
Raval And Co. And Anr. vs K.G. Ramachandran (Minor) And Ors. on 20 January, 1966
We may also refer here to the observations of this Court in Raval and Company v. K.G Ramachandran There this Court noticed Shri Ram Chand v. Smt. Sham Devi I.L.R. (1955) Punj. 36 and pointed out that it was held there that the Act under consideration in that case provided the whole procedure for obtaining the relief of ejectment and that being so provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had no relevance. No doubt the decision mentioned with approval by this Court related to another enactment. But the principle indicated by this Court was the same as that applied by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Section 2 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
Faqir Baksh vs Murli Dhar on 13 January, 1931
On behalf of the appellants, three contentions have been urged before me. It was first contended that the purchase by the defendant from Hanumantha Rao will not bring about a merger of the leasehold and the vendee's interest because the purchase was only of a half-share. Reliance was placed in support of this contention on the decision of the judicial Committee in Faquir Baksh V. Murli Dhar (1931)61 M.L.J. 261 : L.R. 58 I.A. 75 : I.L.R. (1931) 6 Luck. 197 : A.I.R 1931 P.C. 63. As a proposition of law there can be little doubt that, if a person is a tenant of the whole of a property, the acquisition by him of ownership in a portion thereof will not of itself extinguish the leasehold interest.