Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (2.53 seconds)Associated Hotels Of India Ltd vs R. N. Kapoor on 19 May, 1959
In support of the contention Mr. Roy Chowdhury placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in Associated Hotels of India Limited v. R.N. Kapoor, . Mr. Roy Chowdhury also placed reliance on another judgment of the Apex Court in Capt.
Capt. B.V.D Souza vs Antonio Fausto Fernandes on 1 August, 1989
The user of electricity from the earmarked meter of the owner and petty repairs of the flat did not give any unrestricted or uncontrolled user of the property in the occupation of the plaintiff. All these factual aspects are sufficient to interprete the deed as well as the intention of the parties in favour of creation of a licence rather than a tenancy. The agreement itself (Ext. Ka-1) and the evidence adduced are sufficient to indicate that the principles adopted in Captain B.V. D'Souza's case (supra) is not applicable in the present case specially when there are sufficient indication that no interest in the property was created in favour of the plaintiff appellant.
The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Sm. Mina Ghosh vs Daulatram Arora And Ors. on 3 October, 1966
13. In the present case immediately after the expiry of the period of 11 months the plaintiff went on paying the licence fee for another 11 months and thereafter an attempt was made to claim tenancy in respect of the suit premises. Subsequently money orders were also sent with view to that end. But when the tests laid down by the Apex Court for ascertaining the question whether the plaintiff was a tenant or licensee in respect of the suit premises were applied, the only result available is that the plaintiff was a licensee and not a tenant. I am of the view that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court took into consideration all the required tests as well as the facts and circumstances and thereafter came to a just decision that the plaintiff was a mere licensee in respect of the suit premises under the defendant. I fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below and accordingly the substantial question of law framed hereinabove are decided accordingly in favour of the respondent defendant.
Ram Awatar Singh vs Khajan Singh on 20 March, 1978
8. On the other hand Mr. Sunil Kumar Chakraborty, appearing on behalf of the respondent placed reliance on the decisions (Smt. Mina Ghose v. Daulatram Arora and Ors.), 82 CWN 695 (Ram Awatar Singh v. Khajan Singh Punjabi), (Tarab Ghosiv. Smt. Laxmi Agarwal and Anr.) and also on the principles adopted by the Apex Court in Capt.
1