https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327661 The appellant failed to prove creation of a tenancy because mere rent-like payments and references to rent did not establish a landlord-tenant relationship, and no contemporaneous resolution or credible evidence showed the terms or creation of any lease. The appellant was also estopped from later asserting tenancy, because a decree-holder conducting an execution sale must disclose material interests such as tenancy in the sale proclamation and verified particulars under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC. By omitting that claim during the sale process, the appellant treated the property as unencumbered for auction purposes. The auction purchaser was therefore entitled to possession of the entire property. en-us Wed, 16 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 May 2016 22:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327661 The appellant failed to prove creation of a tenancy because mere rent-like payments and references to rent did not establish a landlord-tenant relationship, and no contemporaneous resolution or credible evidence showed the terms or creation of any lease. The appellant was also estopped from later asserting tenancy, because a decree-holder conducting an execution sale must disclose material interests such as tenancy in the sale proclamation and verified particulars under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC. By omitting that claim during the sale process, the appellant treated the property as unencumbered for auction purposes. The auction purchaser was therefore entitled to possession of the entire property. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327661