TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a tenancy from month to month arose under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on the lessee's expiry of term and the landlord's acceptance of rent from sub-lessees, so as to bar the suit for ejectment.
Analysis: The majority held that Section 116 applies to an under-lessee who remains in possession after determination of the lease and that a fresh tenancy may arise when the landlord assents to such continuance in possession by accepting rent or otherwise. On the facts, the respondents had consistently tendered rent as rent in support of their claim to continue in occupation, and the appellant ultimately cashed those cheques without contemporaneous reservation. The later protest that the amounts were received without prejudice could not alter the legal effect of the prior unconditional receipt. The majority treated the conduct of both parties as sufficient to establish acceptance of rent as such and, therefore, assent to the holding over.
Conclusion: A monthly tenancy under Section 116 stood created and the suit for ejectment could not succeed.
Concurring Opinion: The Chief Justice, Fazl Ali J. and Mahajan J. agreed with the majority reasoning and conclusion.
Dissenting Opinion: Patanjali Sastri J. held that Section 116 requires consensus ad idem and that payment and receipt of rent in circumstances where each party was consistently asserting a contrary legal position did not imply a contractual tenancy. In his view, the receipts were made without prejudice to the parties' respective contentions and no holding over was established.
Ratio Decidendi: Acceptance of rent from an under-lessee after expiry of the lease may create a tenancy by holding over under Section 116 only where the parties' conduct, viewed as a whole, shows assent to a fresh tenancy and not merely receipt of money while maintaining inconsistent legal positions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
