Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.05 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961
Before the High Court, the main contention of the appellants
was that, since a fresh tenancy by holding over was created
by the acceptance of rent by the lessors after the
determination of the lease by efflux of time, the appellants
were entitled to six months' notice expiring with the end of
the year of the tenancy, as the lease originally granted was
for a manufacturing purpose, and therefore, the lease
created by the holding over was also for same purpose. The
High Court was of (the opinion that in view of the decision
of this Court in Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Kartik Chandra Das(l)
no case was made out for new tenancy by holding over under
section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act as the appel-
lants had obtained the status of irremovability under the
Act, and as there was no contractual tenancy, the tenants
were not entitled to any notice. The Court also held that
the lease which was granted for erecting a saw mill was not
a lease for manufacturing purpose.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 1 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966
In the said
decision, the appellant before this Court was a tenant of a
piece of land. The lease was for a period of ten years but
the lessee was given the option of renewal on his fulfilling
certain conditions. The lease deed also provided that if
the lessor required the lessee to vacate the premises,
whether at the time of the expiry of the lease or thereafter
(in case the lessee exercised his option to renew the lease)
six month notice to the lessee was necessary. The lessee
exercised his option to renew the lease and offered to
fulfill the condition therefore. In the meanwhile the
Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, was passed. One of the
questions which arose for consideration was whether the
Thika tenant was entitled to the notice provided under the
lease. This Court held that the Act did not give a right to
the landlord to evict a contractual tenant without first
determining the contractual tenancy.