TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a mortgagor can induct a tenant in mortgaged property during the pendency of mortgage litigation so as to prejudice the mortgagee, and whether such a tenant can claim protection against the mortgagee or auction-purchaser.
Analysis: The induction of the tenant took place while the mortgage subsisted and during the pendency of proceedings relating to the mortgaged property. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 embodies the doctrine of lis pendens and prevents dealings with immovable property in a manner that would affect the rights in issue in pending litigation. A lease created by the mortgagor during such pendency is bound by the result of the mortgage suit and cannot defeat the rights of the mortgagee or a purchaser in execution. Section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 governs a mortgagor's power to lease, but it does not protect a lease created in violation of Section 52. The claimed protection under rent legislation was also unavailable in these facts because the tenancy itself was created pendente lite to the prejudice of the mortgagee.
Conclusion: The tenant's induction was illegal and ineffective against the mortgagee and the appellant was entitled to possession.
TaxTMI 
