Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.44 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 13 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Jyotish Thakur And Ors. vs Tarakant Jha And Ors. on 11 September, 1962
In some of the cited cases there may be overlapping and, therefore, in considering the question of merger the question of implied surrender has been brought in. So far as merger is concerned, we have to go by the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Jyotish v. Tarakant . The union of the superior and subordinate interests will not automatically cause a merger. It will be deemed to have taken place if the intention to merge is clear and not otherwise. Likewise, surrender of tenancy rights within the meaning of cLauses (e) and (f) of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act is based on the bilateral act of the landlord and the tenant. It partakes the character of a contract between the parties, one party surrenders and the other party accepts the surrender. Such a surrender may be express as contemplated by Clause (e) of Section 111 or may be an implied one to be inferred from the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case.
Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885
Lala Devi Singh And Ors. vs Bhagwan Dass Badlu And Ors. on 13 December, 1971
The following passage from Lala v. Bhagwan Dass brings out the position:
Dhulilal vs Pannalal on 6 December, 1962
He felt that a case of this Court reported as Dhulilal v. Pannalal had weighed with the court below and, therefore, he tried to distinguish that case on facts.
Godasankara Valia Raja vs Tharappan Vareed on 2 December, 1960
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, tried to support the judgment of the learned District Judge. He referred me to Sardarilal v. Ramlal , Velu v. Lakshmi AIR 1953 TC 584, Meenakshi Amma v. K.V. Narayani , Ram Rao v. Pahumal , G. Valia Raja v. T. Vareed , Kamlakar & Co. v. Gulam Shafi , Lala v. Bhagwan Dass and Sachalmal Parasram v. Ratanbai .
Section 18 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Boddana Ramudu And Ors. vs Sasapu Sanyasi Naidu And Anr. on 24 July, 1940
7. Learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant contended that in the circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the defendant-tenant had made a surrender of his tenancy rights by accepting the mortgage in his favour. He maintained that there was an agreement between the parties that even on redemption of the mortgage the tenant shall continue to remain in possession of the suit shop and the court below was in error in ignoring the same. Then learned Counsel argued that the plaintiff had not pleaded any case of surrender of tenancy rights by the defendant in his plaint, on the contrary, he pleaded bonafide personal necessity evicting the defendant. In the alternative, learned Counsel submitted that even if there be an implied surrender, for express surrender was not there, then such a surrender cannot be enforced by the Court as the tenant cannot contract out of the protective provisions under Section 13 of the Act. Learned Counsel took the position that in the present case the relationship of landlord and tenant can only be said to have been suspended and on the termination of the mortgage that relationship would revive with full force and the tenant could legitimately claim the protection of Section 13 of the Act; being a statutory tenant. Learned Counsel invited my attention to a number of cases, such as, Kallu v. Diwan ILR 24 All 487, Lachhman Das v. Heeralal , Jagmohan Ahir v. Ram Kishan Misir AIR 1936 Oudh 322, Boddana Ramudu v. Sanyasi Naidu AIR 1941 Mad 97, C. Kuriminaidu v. K. Padmanabham , V.B. Raju v. K. Avatharam and Kashi v. Durga 12 IC 734.