Advanced Search Results

Kanoria Jute and Industries Limited Vs. Saraf Agencies Private Limited

Court : Kolkata

Subject : MRTP

tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and such tenancy is governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act as the rate of the contractual rent was Rs.22,150/- a month and as such, by virtue of

Bhagyanagar Khadi Samithi, Hyderabad Vs. S.B. Chitnis (Died) and Other ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Property

Acts : Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 106; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 96 - Order 7, Rule 14; Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960

Reported in : 1998(5)ALD339; 1998(5)ALT199

3-8-1996 SB. Chitnis got issued a legal notice under Section 306 of Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the defendant. The defendant haying received the said notice got issued a reply notice dated 2-10-1986 through … - plaintiff No. 1 viz., S.B. Chitnis filed the suit for evicting the defendant from the suit schedule property i.e., pacca built double storied buildings with mulgics bearing Municipal No.4-4-266 along with the portion of godown in

V.G.K. Design and Development Engg. (Pvt.) Ltd. Represented by Its Dir ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : TenancyProperty

Acts : Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Sections 2, 2(3), 3, 6, 7, 9 and 27 to 46; Transfer of Property Act - Sections 106; Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Sections 52; Companies Act

Reported in : ILR2007KAR5150; 2008(1)KarLJ305; 2008(1)KCCR322; AIR2008NOC739; 2008(1)AIRKarR564; 2008AIHC1417(Kar)(DB)

in payment of monthly rents. Plaintiff got issued a lawyer's notice or legal notice dated 19.3.2005 terminating the tenancy of defendant but the defendant failed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property to … the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court.3. Plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property. Defendant is the tenant in the schedule property under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 13,500/-.

Smt. Maya Devi and ors. Vs. Rattan Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : PropertyTenancy

Reported in : (2010)158PLR390

The case set up by the plaintiff/appellants was, that the property sold by the defendants was under the tenancy of one Telu, which was inherited by his two sons Phula and Harphul. It was the case of … Singh, was partly allowed.2. The suit of the appellants, was decreed for possession of half share of the property sold by way of pre-emption being the tenants.3. The facts in brief read as under:Manjit Singh Buttalla filed

Dasappa Vs. Seetharam

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 5, 6 and 34; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 58 and 65; Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 3

Reported in : ILR1995KAR1683

Civil Judge, Bangalore, has decreed the plaintiff's claim, holding the plaintiff to be the absolute owner of the property in dispute, as well as the defendant to be in unauthorised occupation thereof without having perfected title by … further stated in the written statement that it is wrong to say that there was any contract of tenancy between himself and the plaintiff. The defendant admitted the filing of Suit No. 10011 of 1980, against the

Ram Gopal Vs. Ram Charan

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

the Delhi lot for the title of the said property at Chandni Chowk, Delhi and not for the tenancy rights for the said property. It is urged that when the bid was accepted by the court on … to bid for the three lots separately and the party having the highest bid was to take the property of that lot and pay 50% of the bid amount to the other side. If for some reason

K. Mukta Ashok Khankhoje Vs. Namdeorao Tukaram Khutaphale

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 2000 - Sections 16 and 16(1); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 106

Reported in : 2004(2)ALLMR59; 2004(1)MhLj941

the tenancy has to be terminated first by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and as such the notice terminating the tenancy is essential.4. It is the contention of the learned

The Screen Corpn. (1938) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Biswanath Deb and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : TenancyProperty

Acts : West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Sections 1(3), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 31 and 46; ;Transfer of Property Act, 1882; ;Constitution of India - Article 14

Reported in : (1994)1CALLT427(HC)

occupy the said premises since then as a monthly tenant governed under the provision of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and not as a sub-lessee governed under the provision of the Transfer of Property Act. In … making payment in respect of the suit premises to the plaintiff-opposite parties who were the owner of the property. It was also alleged by the appellant that from November, 1973 rents were paid by cheques and each

Santanu Chaudhuri Vs. Subir Ghosh

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Civil

Acts : West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Sections 12 and 13(6); ;Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 53A and 107; ;Bombay Public Trusts Act - Sections 19, 20, 21, 79 and 80; ;Specific Relief Act - Section 27A; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 11 - Order 14 - Order 20, Rule 12; ;Evidence Act - Section 66

Reported in : 2006(1)CHN315

against the advance.(e) Taking advantage of retention of Rs.1,25,000/-, the defendant wrongfully misrepresented the same to be a tenancy agreement and forcibly entered into the suit property by breaking open the padlock put up by Shri Kali … and in the capacity of such administrator, he inducted one Kali Saha as a licensee in the suit property for the purpose of use of the portion thereof for ceremonial occasions. As charge for induction as such

Surajmull Ghanshyamdas Vs. Samadarshan Sur

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Tenancy Law; ;Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 - Section 4; ;Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106; ;Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 115

Reported in : AIR1969Cal109

providing, in Section 4, for a one month's notice, was overriding the corresponding provision under the Transfer of Property Act, which required, in the case of manufacturing leases, six months' notice; in other cases, fifteen days'. While, … on the allegations inter alia that the petitioner was a thika tenant under him, who had forfeited his tenancy right under an appropriate notice of ejectment and had also no protection under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act,