<?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>1918 (6) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181353</link>
    <description>A notice to quit should be construed as a whole and according to its substance, so a broader description identifying the entire tenancy will prevail over an isolated reference to a smaller plot where tenants knew the surrounding facts. On that approach, the notice was treated as terminating the whole holding rather than only part of it. Service was also supported by registered postal dispatch, signed receipts, one defendant&#039;s admission of receipt, and no convincing denial by the others; such evidence can satisfy the requirement of delivery under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The tenancy determination and claim to possession were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 1918 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:27:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=423841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1918 (6) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181353</link>
      <description>A notice to quit should be construed as a whole and according to its substance, so a broader description identifying the entire tenancy will prevail over an isolated reference to a smaller plot where tenants knew the surrounding facts. On that approach, the notice was treated as terminating the whole holding rather than only part of it. Service was also supported by registered postal dispatch, signed receipts, one defendant&#039;s admission of receipt, and no convincing denial by the others; such evidence can satisfy the requirement of delivery under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The tenancy determination and claim to possession were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 1918 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181353</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>