Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.16 seconds)Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Janardan Swarup And Ors. vs Devi Prasad And Ors. on 30 April, 1958
The vital principle underlying the decision in Janardan Swarup's case, AIR 1959 All 33 is that, in a case of joint landlord or several persons having a legal interest in ejecting the tenant, an application made by one of them wilt be deemed to have been made on behalf of all for the need of one is the need of all.
Moti Lal vs Basant Lal And Anr. on 30 March, 1955
15. Learned counsel next cited Moti Lal v. Basant Lal, AIR 1956 All. 175 in which H. S. Chaturvedi J. observed that any permission obtained under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act enures to the benefit not only of the person who obtained it, but also those who were interested in filing the suit. In this case too the plaintiffs were joint owners of the accommodation and both had a legal interest in ejecting the tenant. The decision of Chaturvedi, J., therefore, does not apply to the facts of the present case.
Rati Ram Ji vs Mithan Lal on 16 October, 1959
In Rati Ram Ji v. Mithan Lal, Second Appeal No. 3776 of 1958; (AIR 1960 All 408) I held that Section 3(1) does not bar the service of a notice under Section 106. Thus Jamini Bala Devi could have sent this notice without the permission of the District Magistrate but it would have been of no avail to her if she wanted to file a suit for eviction, and she would have to apply for permission under Section 3(1) of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The notice served fay Jamini Bala Devi cannot give her successor a right which it could not confer upon her.
1