Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.45 seconds)
M. Muthu (Died) And Four Others vs Arulmigu Sundareswararswamy ... on 12 January, 2001 cites

Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961

The High Court relying on the decision in Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Kartik Chandra Das, , held that no case was made out for new tenancy for holding over under Section 116 of the Act, as the appellant obtained status of removability under the Act and there was no contractual tenancy. The Apex Court while considering the abovesaid facts on the basis of scope of Section 116 of the Act, has held as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 128 - J C Shah - Full Document

Bhawanji Lakhamhi & Ors vs Himatlal Jamnadas Dani & Ors on 14 December, 1971

4. For the respondent reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani, . This decision of the Supreme Court was in my judgment not correctly appreciated by the lower appellate Court. In para 9 of this report the Supreme Court observed: what the section contemplated is that on one side there should be an offer of taking a new lease evidenced by the lessee of sub-lessee remaining in possession of the property after his term over and on the other side there must be a definite consent to the continuance of possession by the landlord expressed by acceptance of rent or otherwise. Applying this test to the present case it appears that both the conditions formulated by the Supreme Court are present in this case. There was evidence of an offer of taking a new lease on the part of the lessee evidenced by remaining in possession of the property after expiry of the term and on the other side there is evidence of definite consent on the part of the respondent-landlord to the appellant's continuance in possession, the same being expressed by acceptance of rent on 31.10.1972. That being so, the conditions posted by Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act were fully satisfied in this case and the appellant became a tenant of the respondent in the disputed shop by holding over.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 126 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Associated Hotels Of India Ltd., Delhi vs S. B. Sardar Ranjit Singh on 7 December, 1967

As observed by the Supreme Court in Associated Hotels of India v. Ranjit Singh, that waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right. There can be no waiver unless the person against whom the waiver is claimed had full knowledge of the facts enabling him to take effectual action for the enforcement of such rights. Waiver is distinct from estoppel. Waiver is an agreement to release or not to assert a right, whereas estoppel is a rule of evidence. On the facts of this case, mere acceptance of rent after notice to quit under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act would not amount to waiver of notice. It was not made out that the clerk who accepted the rent was aware of the giving of notice in question and had accepted payment of rent despite that knowledge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 191 - R S Bachawat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next