Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the terms of the ijara and kabuliyat created an occupancy right in the appellants or merely conferred a right of renewal, and whether any prior proceedings established an antecedent occupancy right.
Analysis: The clause in question was treated as substantially identical to an earlier clause previously construed by the Board. On that construction, the document did not create an occupancy right or a new term of years, but only contemplated renewal on settlement of fair rent. The appellants failed to prove any antecedent occupancy right. The earlier litigation between the parties also contained a finding negativing occupancy right, which, though not amounting to res judicata, strongly supported the same conclusion. The internal language of the ijara, including the description of the jote as created, was inconsistent with recognition of a pre-existing occupancy interest.
Conclusion: The appellants had no occupancy right and no right to resist khas possession on that basis; the appeal was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A lease clause providing for settlement of rent on expiry and continued possession until such settlement creates only a contractual right of renewal, not an occupancy right, unless a pre-existing occupancy title is clearly proved.