Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.30 seconds)Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
Section 111 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 112 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 116 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Smt. Shanti Devi vs Amal Kumar Banerjee on 9 January, 1981
In SHANTI DEVI v. AMAL KUMAR 19 the Supreme Court held that when lessor seek possession of the demised premises from the lessee under Section 111(a) of Transfer of Property Act on the ground that the period of lease expired by efflux of time, notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not necessary.
Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961
13. Section 111 of the Transfer Property Act lays down the various modes or methods in which a lease can be determined. Sections 112 and 113 of the Transfer of Property Act deal respectively with waiver in respect of the modes of termination of lease covered by clauses (g) and (h) of Section 111 of the said Act. There is no provision similar to Sections 112 and 113 in respect of other modes of termination of lease covered by clauses (a) to (f) of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act which impliedly means that there can be no waiver of termination of lease in respect of modes covered by clauses (a) to (f) of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. In this case the suit is filed on the ground that period of lease expired by efflux of time, which falls under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the fact that 1st respondent filed petitions in the R.C.A. and C.R.P seeking a direction to the appellant to deposit arrears of 'rent' is not a ground for holding that the 1st respondent recognized the status of the appellant as a tenant in respect of the suit property, more so because in GANGA DATT MURARKA v. KARIK CHANDRA DAS 22 it was held that acceptance of amounts from a tenant in respect of a building covered by the Rent Control Act does not amount to acceptance of rent from a lessee within the meaning of Sec.116 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the fact that 1st respondent who was pursuing her remedy under the Rent Control Act, and filed petitions seeking a direction to deposit arrears of rent under Section 11 of the Rent Control Act, does not amount to acceptance or demanding 'rent' as contemplated in Section 116 of the T.P. Act, to create a right in favour of the appellant to claim fresh tenancy. In fact in this case appellant, before filing his additional written statement, did not make any assertion that he became a tenant 'holding over' because of the 1st respondent filing a petition seeking a direction to the appellant to deposit 'rent'.
Mahadeo Prasad vs Sm. Sulekha Sarkar on 22 January, 1954
19. The Calcutta High Court in MAHADEVO PRASAD v. SULEKHA SARKAR 27 did not follow MANIKLAL DEY case (2 supra) and observed as follows (at page 406):
Navnitlal Chunilal vs Baburao (No. 2) on 3 July, 1944
"The decision of Buckland J in AIR 1926 CAL 763; where he inferred waiver of the notice to quit from the landlord's withdrawal of deposit from the Rent Controller did not take into consideration the various aspects from which this question of waiver ought to be approached and considered and its criticism in the case of - 'Navnitlal Chunilal V. Baburao, AIR 1945 Bom 132 at p.134 (J) of the Report is not altogether unjustified.