Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 5 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
T. Dakshinamoorthy vs Thulja Bai And Anr. on 9 November, 1951
If the user of the premises by the tenant is otherwise not inconsistent with any of the terms of the lease, an inference about the purpose of the lease may reasonably be drawn from such user. It is, however, necessary that before such an inference -is drawn it must be shown that the user was known to the lessor and had been acquiesced in by him. The en-quity under Section 6(1) would naturally centre on the question as to the purpose, and once the purpose of the lease is determined, the question as to whether section 6(1) is attracted by the lease or not would be automatically resolved. This position appears to be well settled by judicial decisions, vide Dakshinamoorthy v. Thulja Bai, (FB) (B) and Wolfe v. Hogan, (1949) 2 KB 194 (C).
Narayan Das Khettry vs Jatindra Nath Roy Chowdhry on 21 March, 1927
Section 108(h) of the Transfer of Property Act provides that, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the lessee may, even after the determination of the lease, remove all things which he has attached to-the earth, which of course includes structures or buildings put up by him. In other words this section contemplates a dual ownership in such cases. The lessor is the owner of the open plot and the lessee who builds a structure on the open plot is the owner of the structure. It is because of the two distinct ownerships vesting in two different individuals of the plot and the building standing on the plot that the construction of section 6(1) of the Rent Act presents some difficulty.. In Narayan Das v. Jatindra Nath this dual ownership which is a special feature of the Indian law of property, has been expressly recognised by the Privy Council and this dual ownership in respect of the two constituents of the property must be borne in mind in dealing with the question of construing section 6(1) of the Act.
Section 6 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Ismail Dada Bhamani vs Bai Zuleikhabai on 12 November, 1943
11. While we are dealing with the question of construing Section 6(1) of the Act, it would be useful to refer to a decision of this Court in Ismail Dada Bhamani v. Bai Zuleikhabai, 46 Bom LU 244: (AIR 1944 Horn 181) (F). One of the points which arose for decision before the Court of appeal in this case was whether the lease of an open plot attracted the provisions of Section 4(2) of the earlier Rent Act 16 of 1939. The term "premises" was defined by Section 4(2) of the said Act inter alia as including "any land Set separately for the purpose of being used principally for business or trade". It was common ground that, on the land which had been thus let to the tenant, a small structure had been raised by the tenant. In determining the purpose of the lease, the Court relied on Clause 7 of the lease, which directed the lessee "not to use the said demised premises for any purpose other than as timber shops or sheds for the storing of timber or for making furniture and as saw mills and for the purposes incidental thereto, provided nevertheless that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prevent the lessee from occupying a part of the said demised premises as a dwelling house for himself and his family only". The covenant put in a double negative form by Clause 7 was construed by the Court as meaning that the lessee covenanted to the lessor to use the demised premises as timber shops or sheds for the storing of timber or for making furniture and as saw mills and for the purposes incidental thereto. The fact that the tenant was allowed to occupy a part of the premises did not affect the main and dominant purpose of the lease, which was "business or trade". Besides, the fact that the tenant in fact raised a small structure and perhaps had to raise it before using it for business or trade was not allowed to affect the decision of the question as to whether the premises had been let principally for business or trade. This decision supports the conclusion that, in determining the purpose of the lease, an attempt must be made to find out the dominant or main purpose of the lease, and since the dominant or main purpose of the lease was found to be business or trade in this particular case, the lease of the open plot could not be excluded from Section 4(2) of the Act merely because for carrying on trade or business the tenant had to build a Structure on the plot. In other words, the contention that the open plot should.be immediately and without any further construction on it be used principally for business or trade was not accepted by Stone C.J. and Kania J. In our opinion, the ratio underlying the judgments of Stone C. J. and Kania J. supports our view that it would be unreasonable to exclude open plots from Section 6(1) solely on the ground that without a structure being raised on the plots they cannot, be used either for education or for residence.