Advanced Search Results

Smt. Padmabati Debi Vs. Chittaranjan Dasgupta and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : TenancyProperty

Acts : West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Sections 2 and 13(6); ;Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106; ;Evidence Act - Section 114; ;Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 39(2); ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Section 100

Reported in : (2005)3CALLT516(HC)

suit premises in favour of his elder brother the defendant No. 2. Hence this suit was filed after service of notice of ejectment under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act upon the defendant No.

Krishan Kumar Jaggia Vs. Jag Mohan Bhardwaj

Court : Delhi

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1); Transfer of property Act, 1882 - Sections 105

Reported in : AIR1986Delhi142; 28(1985)DLT193

does not take In its fold every tenancy. It contemplates special tenancy which could be conveniently called a service tenancy. The premises must have been let to the tenant by reason of his being in the service or … the landlord in granting the lease. (6) What is then the distinction between an ordinary tenancy and a service tenancy as contemplated in clause (i) (7) Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, defines the 'lease' as

Govinda Mout Vs. Tarak Nath Shah

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Specific Relief Act, 1963;; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 6, Rule 2;; West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Sections 4 and 13

Reported in : (2000)3CALLT254(HC)

contention of the learned counsel for the respondent in both the appeals is that Govinda never pleaded the service tenancy either in his plaint or in his written statement nor he claimed In his evidence that he was … as rent within the meaning of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and as such, the argument of service tenancy Is not tenable.7. It appears that the trial Court discussed the evidence adduced by the parlies in details

Janaklali S. Gupta (Deceased) Through Lrs. Vs. Namdeo Mahadeo (Decease ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Sections 5(4A); Constitution of India - Article 227

Reported in : JT1999(10)SC515; (2000)2SCC176

3, 5 and 7 was dismissed. The appellate court found that Defendants 2 and 3 were having a service tenancy and therefore were not covered by the protection made available to the sub-tenant by the Act. The appellate … Court that Defendants 2 and 3 were protected under the Act is erroneous since they were having a service tenancy. According to the learned counsel a person having service tenancy is a licensee and not a sub-tenant. The

Bhaiya Ram Hargo Lal Vs. Mahavir Prasad Murari Lal Mahajan

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13; Transfer of Property Act - Sections 106 and 111

Reported in : AIR1969P& H110

tenant's written statement, the receipt of the notice was denied. No issue was framed regarding the factum of service or validity of the notice referred to above. The Rent controller passed an order for ejectment which was … (3 of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on August 27, 1965, and that the contractual monthly tenancy of Bhaiya Ram tenant had not been terminated any earlier by any other notice. The saving of the

Siddheswar Paul Vs. Prakash Chandra Dutta

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Sections 13, 13(1), 17, 17(1), 17(3), 21, 22, 22(1) and 22(3)

Reported in : AIR1964Cal105,68CWN30

of summons is served, to deposit in Court or pay to the landlord within one month of the service of the, writ of summons an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last … case relating to proceedings under Sub-sections ( ) and (3) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The opposite party landlord instituted a suit against the petitioner tenant on 14th September, 1960, for

Naresh Chadha and ors Vs. Dharamveer Singh and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

aforesaid observations of the first appellate court will show, the appellants failed to lead any evidence whatsoever of service of the legal notice terminating the contractual tenancy of late Diwan Singh in his life time. No proof

Smt. Shanta Tukaram Kasare Vs. Father Milton Gonsalves the Sole Truste ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Sections 16, 22, 22(1), 22(2) and 55(1); Registration Act, 1908

Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR346; 2005(3)BomCR417; 2005(2)MhLj344

to his employee, such landlord and the employee may enter into an agreement in writing to create a service tenancy in respect of the such premises or any part thereof; and, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, … with the landlord. Undoubtedly, therefore, the pre-requisite of Section 22(1) is the existence of agreement in writing creating service tenancy in favour of the tenant by the landlord who is the employer of the tenant. In other words,

Naranji Bhimji Family Trust, Thr. Managing Trustee, Shri Mahendra Bhav ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Sections 22, 23, 24 and 39 to 52; Transfer of Property Act - Sections 123; Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17

Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR746; 2009(4)MhLj522

the provisions of Section 22 of the Act, it is necessary that there should be written agreement of service tenancy and as in the present case, there was no such written agreement and, therefore, the application itself is … declares that for the purpose of Chapter VIII, a landlord means (a) a person who has created a service tenancy in respect of his premises or a part thereof in favour of his employee under Section 22; (b)

Sm. Daya Moyee Sadhukhan Vs. Dal Singer Singh

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Section 17(3); ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 9, Rules 6(1) and 7- Order 11, Rule 21

Reported in : AIR1979Cal332,83CWN663

Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff determined the tenancy of the defendant by the service of a notice to quit, calling upon him to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of Dec.,