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, on the terms of the lease and the statutory rule governing removal of fixtures, the defendants retained any right to remove the structures after the tenancy had ended and possession had been surrendered, so as to defeat the attachment levied by the plaintiff.
Analysis: The correspondence between the parties was treated as the agreement to lease and, though unregistered, was admissible for the collateral purpose of explaining the tenancy terms. On construction of the lease clauses, the defendants were required to deliver possession at the determination of the tenancy and were given a right to remove structures only on the determination of the tenancy. That contractual arrangement displaced the ordinary statutory rule under the Transfer of Property Act. The right to remove had to be exercised while possession continued, and in any event not beyond a reasonable time after the tenancy ended. As the defendants had gone out of possession and had not removed the structures within the time available, they lost all right, title and interest in them.
Conclusion: The defendants had no subsisting right in the structures when the attachment was levied, and the attachment was ordered to be raised in favour of the applicants.
TaxTMI 
