Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Nandalal Das vs Monmatha Nath Ghose And Ors. on 3 August, 1961
It is submitted that in Nandalal Das vs. Monmatha Nath Ghose &
Ors. AIR 1962 Calcutta 597 it has been held that such a tenant
whose rent has been accepted by the landlord without any demur
or protest is a tenant holding over and it amounts to a renewal of
the earlier lease with all its conditions.
Smt. Shanti Devi vs Amal Kumar Banerjee on 9 January, 1981
In Smt.Shanti Devi vs. Amal Kumar Banerjee AIR 1981 SCC
1550 it has been held that where a lease is for a definite term and
expired by efflux of time by reason of Section 111 (a) of the
Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as T.P.A.), service
of a notice under Section 106 is not necessary for the
determination of the lease.
Bhawanji Lakhamhi & Ors vs Himatlal Jamnadas Dani & Ors on 14 December, 1971
In Bhawanji Lakhamshi and Ors. vs. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani
and Ors. 1972 SC 819, while interpretating the provisions of
Section 116 of T.P.A. it has been held:
Article 113 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sudhir Saran S/O Shri Sukhbir Saran vs Gopi Krishan Verma And Ors. on 24 November, 2004
For the same proposition reliance has been placed upon
Sudhir Saran vs. Gopi Kirshan Verma & Ors. 115 (2004) DLT 476,
Chotu Mia vs. Mt.Sundri AIR (32) 1945 Patna 260, Banathoor
Krishnan Nambudripad vs. Kunkan Nair AIR 1925 Madras 914.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Banathoor Krishnan Nambudripad vs Kunkan Nair on 12 September, 1924
For the same proposition reliance has been placed upon
Sudhir Saran vs. Gopi Kirshan Verma & Ors. 115 (2004) DLT 476,
Chotu Mia vs. Mt.Sundri AIR (32) 1945 Patna 260, Banathoor
Krishnan Nambudripad vs. Kunkan Nair AIR 1925 Madras 914.
1