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 the decree for possession on admissions was justified despite the tenant's denial of service of notice and challenge to the landlord's title, and whether the appellant's continued occupation could be sustained after expiry of the registered lease.
Analysis: The lease was admitted and had expired by efflux of time. On expiry of a fixed-term lease, the tenant's possession becomes that of a tenant at sufferance and the lessee is bound to restore possession. The notice terminating tenancy was sent by registered post to the correct addresses and was supported by postal documents and departmental certification, attracting the statutory presumption of service. Even apart from actual service, the filing and service of the suit could be treated as notice to quit. The appellant's challenge to title was barred by estoppel because a tenant cannot deny the landlord's title during continuance of the tenancy, and such disclaimer also attracted forfeiture. The denial of notice was vague and did not disclose any subsisting right to continue in possession. The admissions on record were sufficient to sustain a decree under Order XII Rule 6, and the appellant's conduct justified exemplary costs.
Conclusion: The decree for possession was rightly passed, the appeal lacked merit, and the appellant was not entitled to relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
