Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (0.29 seconds)
Ashok Kumar Bagga vs Rajvinder Kaur on 7 April, 2021 cites

Union Of India vs M/S K.C.Sharma And Co.. on 14 August, 2020

9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent distinguished the judgments in Union of India v. K.C. Sharma (supra) and Sheth Maneklal Masukhbhai (supra) and argued that the two judgments did not relate to a dispute amongst landlords and tenants. The facts in the said cases were clearly different inasmuch as the suit property therein was handed over under part performance, but no lease deed was executed and in the facts of those cases Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was invoked and held applicable by the Courts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 34 - R S Reddy - Full Document

M/S Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd vs M/S Jasbir Singh Chadha (Huf) & Anr on 7 May, 2010

19. In view of the above conspectus of law, the question that arises is whether the admissions by the Appellant were unequivocal and unambiguous to entitle the Respondent to a partial decree on admission. This question would have to be answered in the background of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jeevan Diesel (supra) where the Court has laid down the parameters of admission required in a suit for possession/ejectment by a landlord against the tenant. As noted aforesaid, the Appellant has admitted the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties as also the rate of rent of the suit property, which is more than Rs. 3,500/- per month, so as to take the suit property outside the ambit of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Lease Agreement executed on 12.10.2015 as well as the subsequent two Lease Agreements are also admitted by the Appellant. The only issue therefore that remains to be seen is regarding the termination of the lease. While as per the Respondent the lease got terminated by efflux of time on 10.10.2017, as per the Appellant there was an oral agreement between the parties extending the lease for two years beyond 10.10.2017. Appellant supports RFA 226/2020 Page 23 of 37 this contention by the fact that the cheques were tendered towards the rent, post this date and were accepted by the Respondent. In my view the plea of the Appellant on this Court deserves to be rejected. The Agreement dated 12.10.2015 admittedly contains Clause 27(A) which required that extension of the lease would be by a mutual agreement and that too in writing and signed by the parties. Appellant has not placed on record any agreement in writing signed by the parties extending the lease beyond 10.10.2017 as the entire case of the Appellant was that it was an oral agreement. Secondly, the Respondent vide her reply dated 09.10.2017 to the notice of the Appellant dated 26.09.2017, requesting for extension, clearly declined the request and had called upon the Appellant to vacate the suit property by 10.10.2017. Therefore, the plea of oral agreement set up by the Appellant, overriding the Clauses of the Registered Lease Agreements and the notices sent by the Respondent and duly received by the Appellant is not tenable. In any event, the Respondent had sent a legal notice terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which was admittedly served on the Appellant and thus the termination in accordance with law, is also admitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 486 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next