https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325845 Under the Rent Act, eviction for rent default required compliance with the statutory demand-notice mechanism and opportunity to pay; mere non-payment without such notice was insufficient. A claim of unauthorized assignment or transfer also failed where the material showed only an advertisement or proposal for sale, not a completed transfer. Non-user of the leased premises did not justify eviction because the cessation of use was linked to liquidation proceedings and was not the unjustified non-user contemplated by the statute. Winding up of the tenant company, by itself, did not entitle the lessors to immediate possession, since corporate existence continues until dissolution under the Companies Act. en-us Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:23:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325845 Under the Rent Act, eviction for rent default required compliance with the statutory demand-notice mechanism and opportunity to pay; mere non-payment without such notice was insufficient. A claim of unauthorized assignment or transfer also failed where the material showed only an advertisement or proposal for sale, not a completed transfer. Non-user of the leased premises did not justify eviction because the cessation of use was linked to liquidation proceedings and was not the unjustified non-user contemplated by the statute. Winding up of the tenant company, by itself, did not entitle the lessors to immediate possession, since corporate existence continues until dissolution under the Companies Act. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325845