Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.47 seconds)
Popular Estate Management Ltd vs Gunjan Paints Ltd on 20 April, 2022 cites

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

14. The Court below has totally failed to appreciate and consider that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Page 24 of 30 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 20 21:31:12 IST 2022 C/SCA/8941/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2022 case of Bhawanji Lakhamshi (supra) have had reached the Supreme Court after fulfledged trial of the suit where the parties had adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Supreme Court has after considering the evidence which was adduced by the parties during the course of the trial of the suit has held that the act of held over after the expiration of the term does not creat of tenancy of any kind and mere acceptance of amount equivalent to rent by the land from the tenant in possession after the lease has been determined cannot be regarded as an evidence of a new agreement of tenancy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 126 - K K Mathew - Full Document

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

This Court declined the prayer to reconsider Ganga Dutt Murarka's case (supra) and held that acceptance by landlord from the tenant, after the contractual tenancy had expired, of amounts equivalent to rent or amounts which was fixed as standard rent did not amount to acceptance of rent from a lessee within the meaning of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. The present is not a case of acceptance of amounts equivalent to rent or amounts fixed as standard rent but acceptance of increased rent. It was also obsered that (SCC p. 394, para 13) "We do not say that the operation of Section 116 is always excluded whatever be the circumstances under which the tenant pays the rent and the landlord accepts it."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 128 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next