Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.33 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Probodh Kumar Das vs The Dantmara Tea Co. Ltd. on 10 October, 1939
21.Later, following the Privy Council judgment, three Judges Bench of the
Supreme Court in Delhi Motor Co and others –vs- U.A.Basrurkar(dead) by his
legal representatives and others reported in AIR 1968 SC 794, held that,
“6. In these circumstances, an argument was put forward
on behalf of the firm that, though this contract to lease had not
been registered, the firm could claim possession under it in view of
the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act,
because, in this case the Company would be debarred from
enforcing against the firm any right in respect of that property of
which the firm had already taken possession, viz., part of the
Show-Room and a portion of the Balcony. In our opinion, this
argument proceeds on an incorrect interpretation of Section 53A,
because that Section is only meant to bring about a bar against
enforcement of rights by a lessor in respect of property of which
the lessee had already taken possession, but does not give any
right to the lessee to claim possession or to claim any other rights
16/21
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.Nos.115 and 116 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
on the basis of an unregistered lease. Section 53A of the Transfer
of Property Act is only available as a defence to a lessee and not
as conferring a right on the basis of which the lessee can claim
rights against the lessor. This interpretation of Section 53A was
clearly laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in
Probodh Kumar Das v. Dantmara Tea Co., 66 Ind App 293=(AIR
1940 PC 1).
Section 49 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 131 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1