Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)
Lingaiah, Kistaiah, Chennaiah Rep. By ... vs Chillampalli Venkatesham And Anr. on 26 June, 1997
cites
Mohar Singh (Dead By Lrs.) vs Devi Charan & Others on 9 May, 1988
In the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Mohar Singh v. Devi Charan, , which is also referred to by the lower Court in its orders, it is observed that Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act provides a statutory exception to the principle of unity and integrity of the tenancy that the said provision enables an assignee of a part of the reversion to exercise all the rights of the landlord in respect of the portion relating to which a reversion is so assigned subject, of course, to the other covenant running with the land. It is further held by the Supreme Court that on partition the co-owner and consequently his transferee became the exclusive owner of one of the shops which came to that co-owner's share and as such there is no question of splitting up the integrity and unity of the tenancy. In such circumstances, on proof of bona fide need, the transferee-landlord is entitled to evict the tenant and in such cases there is no necessity to join another co-owner in the auction.
Vankayala Suryanarayana And Anr. vs Sri Sitarama Chit Fund Company ... on 24 September, 1992
In the earlier decision of this Court reported in V. Suryanarayana v. Sitarama Chit Fund Company, it was held that the provisions of Transfer of Property Act in respect of matters exclusively covered by the Rent Control Act are not excluded. It is also held in the said decision that the revision petitioners therein who are transferees decree holders and who have stepped into the shoes of the original decree holder are entitled for recovery of physical possession of the portion of the suit schedule property from the tenants. Inasmuch as there is no provision in the A.P Rent Control Act or the Rules framed thereunder relating to execution of a decree regarding portion of the demised premises Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act will apply and such an execution petition filed for eviction relating to only a portion of the demised premises is maintainable and cannot be said to be inexecutable. Therefore, in view of such circumstances, the lower Court rightly dismissed the petition in E.A. No. 12 of 1994 and there are absolutely no valid reasons to interfere with such orders of the lower Court.
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
1