Transfer of Property Act
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suit No. 788 of 1990
Decided On: 20.02.1994
Appellants: P.S. Bedi
Vs.
Respondent: The Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.
Hon 'ble Judges: P.N. Nag, J.
Counsels: A.S. Chadha and Bharat Deepak, Advs
Subject: Tenancy
Subject: Law of Evidence
Acts/Rules/Orders: Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106
Cases Referred:
L. Bhagwan Das v. Union of India, AIR 61 J&K 39; Bakshi Sachdev v. Concord, 1993 RLR 563; Shyam Chran v. Sheoji Bhai, AIR 1977 SC 2270; Ram Pasricha v. Jagnnath, AIR 1976 SC 2335; Pooran Chand v. Motilal, AIR 164 SC 461; Union of India v. RR Hingorani, 1987 1 SCC 551; Atyam Veerraja v. Pechatti Venkanna, AIR 166 SC 629
Case Note:
Interpretaion of documents - Lease deed-period of lease can not be infinite by mere provision of renewal every three years when lease was for specific period.
Tort - Damages/mesne profits-for illegal occupation of premises after tenancy came to an end after efflux of time-can be granted at a higher rate provided it is not penal or unconscionble-market rate proved by oral evidence-damages granted.
Title - Challange to the title of Landlord-can not be made by a tenant in a suit for possession, in view of Section 116 of Evidence Act.
Transfer of Property Act- Section 106--notice under-is not required where the tenancy stood terminated by efflux of time.
FACTS:
(1) The facts set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner of the properly knownasflatNo.9-B,Hansalaya Building, 15,BarakhambaRoad,NewDelhi-l 10001. The aforementioned premises, which has a covered area of 1333 sq. ft. on the 9th floor in Hansalaya Building, as marked "B" in the plan was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant as monthly tenant initially at the rate of Rs.5.50 per ft. per month i.e. Rs.7331.50 per month from 30.4.1976 on the terms reduced in writing vide registered lease dated 6.6.1977. vide Registered No.2261, book No-3816 on pages 84-87 dated23.6.1977. The said
Suit No. 788 of 1990
Decided On: 20.02.1994
Appellants: P.S. Bedi
Vs.
Respondent: The Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.
Hon 'ble Judges: P.N. Nag, J.
Counsels: A.S. Chadha and Bharat Deepak, Advs
Subject: Tenancy
Subject: Law of Evidence
Acts/Rules/Orders: Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106
Cases Referred:
L. Bhagwan Das v. Union of India, AIR 61 J&K 39; Bakshi Sachdev v. Concord, 1993 RLR 563; Shyam Chran v. Sheoji Bhai, AIR 1977 SC 2270; Ram Pasricha v. Jagnnath, AIR 1976 SC 2335; Pooran Chand v. Motilal, AIR 164 SC 461; Union of India v. RR Hingorani, 1987 1 SCC 551; Atyam Veerraja v. Pechatti Venkanna, AIR 166 SC 629
Case Note:
Interpretaion of documents - Lease deed-period of lease can not be infinite by mere provision of renewal every three years when lease was for specific period.
Tort - Damages/mesne profits-for illegal occupation of premises after tenancy came to an end after efflux of time-can be granted at a higher rate provided it is not penal or unconscionble-market rate proved by oral evidence-damages granted.
Title - Challange to the title of Landlord-can not be made by a tenant in a suit for possession, in view of Section 116 of Evidence Act.
Transfer of Property Act- Section 106--notice under-is not required where the tenancy stood terminated by efflux of time.
FACTS:
(1) The facts set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner of the properly knownasflatNo.9-B,Hansalaya Building, 15,BarakhambaRoad,NewDelhi-l 10001. The aforementioned premises, which has a covered area of 1333 sq. ft. on the 9th floor in Hansalaya Building, as marked "B" in the plan was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant as monthly tenant initially at the rate of Rs.5.50 per ft. per month i.e. Rs.7331.50 per month from 30.4.1976 on the terms reduced in writing vide registered lease dated 6.6.1977. vide Registered No.2261, book No-3816 on pages 84-87 dated23.6.1977. The said
Bibliography: * Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd