RK Mittal v. State of UP
Master plan has force of law, it has to be amended by statutory procedure and not be exec order.
Sent from phone
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Residential - commercial, town plan cannot be altered, no banking activity in residential area
2012 2 SCC 232
RK Mittal v. State of UP
RK Mittal v. State of UP
Termination of Lease: 106 of TP Act
Case 1 (Supreme Court - 2009) : (2009)15SCC693
para 19: A simple tenancy can be terminated by service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Once a valid notice is served, the tenant becomes trespasser.
Case 2 ( Allahabad HC - single judge) : 2010 1 AWC742
para 9. It is further found from the finding recorded by both the authorities that a finding of fact has been recorded regarding service of notice. The contents of notice may not be very happily worded but the gist and meaning of the notice are very clear which terminates the tenancy of the petitioner immediately on the date of receipt of notice and to vacate the premises within 30 days. In my opinion this is the only requirement in law for giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice cannot be sought to be invalid unless and until it is proved by the person concerned that there is no mention in the notice that he is in arrears for more than 3 months or there is no whisper in the notice regarding termination of the tenancy immediately after the expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. A clear finding has been recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Court as well as by the revisional authority. In the notice, it has clearly been mentioned that within a period of 30 days, he has to vacate the premises.
Case 3 (Sup Ct - 7 judges) AIR1979SC1745,
para 7. It is this clause which brings into operation the requirement of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Without adverting to the effect and the details of waiver of forfeiture, waiver of notice to quit, relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent etc. as provided for in Sections 112 to 114A of the Transfer of Property Act, suffice it to say that under the said Act no ground of eviction of a tenant has to be made out once a contractual tenancy is put to an end by service of a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Until and unless the lease is determined, the lessee is entitled to continue in possession. Once it is determined it becomes open to the lessor to enforce his right of recovery of possession of the property against him.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Holding over - Lease
2010 28 LCD 1790
Giriraj Prasad v. Shyam Sundar Agarwal
No notice of termination necessary for fixed term tenancy
Sent from phone
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Promissory Estoppel and legitimate expectation
AIR 2012 P n H 30
Promises once made on which parties act cannot be broken. Commercial investment.
Sent from phone
Right to practise of an advocate
First case since notification dated 15.6.2011
After notification under Section 30 of Advocates Act, all the lawyers have acquired, a right to practice before all courts/tribunals and such other forum of India as a matter of right.
AIR 2012 Ker 23
N P Pushpangadan v. Federal Bank
Sent from phone
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Application for Recall and Appeal can be filed and maintained at the same time
19. In A. K. P. Haridas v. V. A. Madhavi Amma and others, MANU/KE/0076/1988 : AIR 1988 Ker 304, the Court observed that the remedy under Order IX, Rule 13 and that by way of appeal are not inconsistent, or mutually exclusive. There is no bar in resorting to both the remedies simultaneously or any of them alone. The relevant paragraph reads as under :
There is no bar in resorting to both the remedies simultaneously or any of them alone. Only thing is that when both remedies are attempted and one succeeds the other becomes infructuous since the object and effect of both is the same. Availability of the remedy by way of appeal is no bar to an application under Order IX. Rule 13, if such a remedy is also available to the party. For example when the defendant is set ex parte under Order IX. Rule 6 and an ex parte decree passed, though that decree is appealable, an application under Order IX, Rule 13 also will lie. The real question for consideration is only whether an application under Order IX, Rule 13 will lie.
20. Thus, it is imminently clear that a decree passed for defendant's default in filing written statement is an ex parte decree duly comes within the ambit of Order IX, Rule 13 and as such an application to set aside underOrder IX, Rule 13 is maintainable.
Held in :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
Decided On:
Appellants:
Vs.
Respondent:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)