https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175646 A municipal commissioner could not create a binding lease beyond the Corporation's sanctioned terms, and the occupant's later correspondence and part-payments on altered terms did not amount to acceptance of the original proposal. No concluded contract arose, so eviction could not be resisted on that basis. A tenancy by holding over requires the landlord's clear assent to continued possession, usually through acceptance of rent as tenancy rent; payment at the old rate without such assent was insufficient. The occupant was therefore only a tenant by sufferance and was liable to eviction without notice. en-us Wed, 06 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Nov 2015 17:57:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175646 A municipal commissioner could not create a binding lease beyond the Corporation's sanctioned terms, and the occupant's later correspondence and part-payments on altered terms did not amount to acceptance of the original proposal. No concluded contract arose, so eviction could not be resisted on that basis. A tenancy by holding over requires the landlord's clear assent to continued possession, usually through acceptance of rent as tenancy rent; payment at the old rate without such assent was insufficient. The occupant was therefore only a tenant by sufferance and was liable to eviction without notice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175646