Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.27 seconds)

Anthony vs Kc Ittoop And Sons And Others on 21 July, 2000

17. It is not in dispute that in the present case the appellant tenant remained in possession of the land for the fixed term envisaged in the lease agreement i.e. from 29-5-1996 to 28-5-2005 and even thereafter. As the lease in question was not a registered instrument and as Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application to the State of Haryana, in view of the provisions of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act read with Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the terms of the lease deed would not be admissible in evidence and, therefore, cannot be looked into for the purpose of determining the duration of the lease. Though in Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons [Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons, (2000) 6 SCC 394] it was held that in such a situation an oral lease not exceeding one year can be presumed, it must not be lost sight that in Anthony [Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons, (2000) 6 SCC 394] the lease in question was one under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, namely, a non-agricultural lease. In the present case, the lease being 10 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2019 07:58:38 ::: RSA No.1791 of 1980 (O&M) -11- admittedly an agricultural lease the same can be deemed to be from year to year in view of the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 128 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next