Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.39 seconds)

Modula India vs Kamakshya Singh Deo on 27 September, 1988

12. We are not, however, inclined to send back the case on remand for a fresh hearing to enable the defendant/tenant to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, in view of our finding that the plaintiff has hopelessly failed to prove the alleged violation of the provisions of Clause(m) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 267 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Bhagaban Biswas vs Bejoy Singh Nahar on 22 August, 1979

7. The first contention raised by Mr. Roy Chowdhury on behalf of the appellant does not merit acceptance. Section 114A of the Transfer of Property Act provides for relief against forfeiture in respect of express terms and conditions between the lessor and the lessee. Section 114A can be invoked only when there is an express condition which provides that on the breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter. The provision in Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act is an implied term. The written agreement (Ext. 2) does not contain any specific term that the landlord may re-enter if damage is caused by the running of the printing machine. In our opinion, Section 114A of the Transfer of Property Act has no application in the present case. This view is fortified by the Full Bench decision of this court in Bhagaban Biswas v. Bijoy Singh Nahar, , where it has been held that a notice under Section 114A of the Transfer of Property Act need not be given if the ground on which the ejectment is prayed for is under Section 13(1)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 .i.e. if a tenant or a person residing in the premises has done any act contrary to the provisions of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1