Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)Section 9 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Meghji Vallabhdas vs Dayalji Lalji And Company on 17 January, 1924
3. Mr. Seervai has strongly relied on a decision of Mr. Justice Fawcett which he delivered on the Original Side in Meghji Vallabhdas v. Dayalji & Co. (1924) I.L.R. 48 Bom. 341 : S.C. 26 Bom. L.R. 231 In that case a tenancy expired on October 20, 1923, and the defendants, who were the tenants, wrote to their landlord, the plaintiff, saying that they would vacate not on October 20, but on October SO. The plaintiff objected to this and said that if they continued they would have to give a proper notice to quit. The defendants as a matter of fact quitted on October 26 and then the plaintiffs filed the suit ' claiming rent for the whole month and also additional rent for a further month in lieu of notice, and Mr. Justice Fawcett held that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed as a new tenancy had come into existence, and the defendants by continuing in possession held over, and the reason which led Mr. Justice Fawcett to this conclusion was that once the tenant continued in possession after the determination of the lease, it was left to the landlord to exercise his option either to assent to that possession or not to assent to it. The option was no longer with the tenant. It was for the landlord to determine the character of the tenant's possession either by assenting to it or refusing to assent to it, and the learned Judge held that in this particular case the landlord had assented to the tenant's possession and, therefore, a new tenancy had come into existence and the defendants were liable to give a proper notice to quit before they gave up possession. We fail to see with respect to Mr. Seervai how this decision helps him ; because the whole question resolves itself to this : Has the landlord assented to the tenant's possession or not? He is perfectly right in urging that that particular right to determine the character of the possession has been given by the law to the landlord, but he must express his intention, he must exercise his option, he must determine the character, and the question in each case is whether the landlord has done so or not.
1