TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed Upholding Possession Decree | Valid Notice, Lease Forfeiture | IndianEvidenceAct</h1> <h3>Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kavita P Lalwani</h3> The appeal challenging the decree for possession under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. The court upheld the decree based on ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the decree for possession under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Service of notice of termination.3. Estoppel of tenant under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.4. Forfeiture of lease under Section 111(g)(2) of the Transfer of Property Act.5. Imposition of costs for frivolous litigation.Summary:1. Validity of the Decree for Possession:The Trial Court passed a decree for possession against the appellant u/s Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was challenged in this appeal. The appellant admitted the lease deed dated 7th November 2006, which expired on 6th November 2008, and the payment of rent to the respondent. The Court found that the admissions were unambiguous, clear, and unconditional, thus justifying the decree for possession.2. Service of Notice of Termination:The respondent sent a notice of termination dated 20th June 2009 by registered post to the appellant's correct addresses. The notice sent to the registered office was returned with remarks 'left,' whereas the notice sent to the Okhla address was duly served. The Court held that the original postal receipts and acknowledgment card raised a presumption of service u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appellant's vague denial of the notice was insufficient to raise an issue.3. Estoppel of Tenant:The appellant disputed the respondent's title, which was barred by Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court held that the appellant, being in possession, could not dispute the title of the landlord. The appellant's plea was thus dismissed.4. Forfeiture of Lease:The appellant's lease was forfeited u/s 111(g)(2) of the Transfer of Property Act due to renunciation of the lease by setting up a title in a third person. The Court held that this brought an end to the landlord-tenant relationship, making the appellant liable for eviction.5. Imposition of Costs:The Court imposed costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the appellant for raising frivolous pleas and dragging the litigation. The appellant's conduct was deemed as misuse of the judicial process, warranting penal costs to discourage such behavior in future litigations.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for possession was upheld. The appellant was directed to pay costs to the respondent within four weeks. The judgment emphasized the importance of truth in judicial proceedings and the need to discourage frivolous litigation through imposition of realistic costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
