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 original tenant's continuance in possession after expiry of the fixed-term lease, with the landlords' assent, created a tenancy by holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act and whether that tenancy was heritable and transferable so as to support the respondent's title.
Analysis: Mere continuance in possession after the lease expired was not enough by itself. The decisive question was whether the landlords assented, expressly or impliedly, to the tenant's continued occupation. Such assent could be inferred from surrounding circumstances, including long uninterrupted possession, knowledge of occupation, municipal records, the landlords' failure to protest, and the withholding of relevant papers giving rise to an adverse inference. Once assent was inferred, the tenancy was renewed by holding over and became a tenancy from month to month under Sections 116 and 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. A month-to-month tenancy is not determined by the tenant's death under Section 111 and is capable of transmission and assignment.
Conclusion: The tenant acquired a valid tenancy by holding over, the tenancy devolved on his heirs, and the respondent derived title from them. The appeal failed and the decree for the respondent stood affirmed.