Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)Section 85 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
V. Kalpakam Amma vs Muthurama Iyer Muthurkrishna Iyer And ... on 28 July, 1994
The Supreme Court overruled the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (1994) 2 Ker LT 424 : (AIR 1995 Kerala 99) (Kalpakam Amma v. Muthurama Iyer) expressing the view that when there is lease of a building such lease would normally take in the site unless it is specifically excluded.
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
George Zacharig @ Raju Karuvamplakka vs T.K Varghese & Another on 25 October, 1994
In the decision in George v. Varghese, 1976 Ker LT 859 a single Judge of this Court has held that even though the leased out property is destroyed the tenancy is not automatically terminated. In that case the rented building was destroyed by fire and the lessee vacated the premises and started his business in another building. When the landlord constructed new building at the old premises, the original tenant claimed possession of the building contending that the lease survives. In that case this Court has held that even though the leased out property is destroyed the tenancy is not automatically terminated and the tenant is conferred with an option under Section 108 (e) of the T. P. Act to treat the contract as void and thereby avoid the liability to pay the rent in future. But he has neither a contractual nor a statutory right to compel the landlord to surrender possession of the new building constructed at that site.
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Kerala University Act, 1974
Vannattankandy Ibrayi vs Kunhabdulla Hajee on 13 December, 2000
In the decision in Vannattankandy Ibrayi v. Kunhabdulla Hajee (2001) 1 SCC 564 ; (2000 AIR SCW 4592) preferred against the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 (2) Ker LT 78 the Supreme Court has held that where tenancy was exclusively for premises and not land, it will stand extinguished if the subject-matter of the tenancy was destroyed by natural calamity.
Thomas vs Moram Mar Baselious Ougen I, Catholics ... on 2 January, 1979
In the decision in Thomas v. Moram Mar Baselious Ougen, 1979 Ker LT 596 : (AIR 1979 Kerala 156) another single Judge of this Court has held that though by destruction of the leased out building wholly or substantially rendering it permanently unfit for the purpose for which it was let out, the lease is not discharged and the tenant is not entitled to squat on the ground where the building was situated or construct a new building in its place or require the landlord
to put up a new structure. That was a suit filed by the plaintiff claiming arrears of rent and damages as well as permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st defendant from constructing any unauthorised structure in the leased out property. The 1st defendant was conducting a motor workshop in the demised premises and the building was completely destroyed by hitting the vehicle belonged to the 2nd defendant which was brought there for repairs. In that case this Court considered the provisions of Section 108 of the T.P. Act and held as above concurring with the judgment reported in 1976 Ker LT 859 referred to above.
Dr. V. Sidharthan vs Pattiori Ramadasan on 27 February, 1984
In the decision in Sidharthan v. Ramadasan, 1984 Ker LT 538 : (AIR 1984 Kerala 181) a Division Bench of this Court held that if the lease is in respect of the building alone apart from the site, by total destruction of the building the lease will be extinguished, for a demise must have a subject-matter and if it is destroyed, the lease comes to an end. In that case the plaintiff had let out a shop room to the defendant for his business. A lorry which came along the adjacent road dashed against the shop and damaged it completely. The defendant attempted to construct a shop-room at the site of the building. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction to stop the construction of the building. In that case, the Division Bench held as above.