<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1975 (7) TMI 153 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178175</link>
    <description>A person qualifies as a thika tenant under section 2(5) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, when the statutory elements are met: holding land under another, liability to pay rent, and erection or acquisition of a structure for residential, manufacturing, or business use. The Act does not require prior landlord permission for erection of the structure, and no implied limitation can be read into this beneficial statute. A tenancy condition restricting use of the land for garaging lorries did not defeat thika tenancy status, and the Transfer of Property Act argument was rejected because the land use remained consistent with the lease purpose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:27:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414687" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (7) TMI 153 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178175</link>
      <description>A person qualifies as a thika tenant under section 2(5) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, when the statutory elements are met: holding land under another, liability to pay rent, and erection or acquisition of a structure for residential, manufacturing, or business use. The Act does not require prior landlord permission for erection of the structure, and no implied limitation can be read into this beneficial statute. A tenancy condition restricting use of the land for garaging lorries did not defeat thika tenancy status, and the Transfer of Property Act argument was rejected because the land use remained consistent with the lease purpose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178175</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>