<?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>1958 (4) TMI 113 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183218</link>
    <description>Where a lease demises land alone and requires the lessee to erect, insure, maintain and surrender a building without compensation on expiry, the building remains the lessee&#039;s property during the term unless the deed clearly provides otherwise. A covenant to hand over the structure at the end of the lease does not itself transfer ownership to the lessor. Rent-control protection for the land does not defeat a separate claim to title in the building or to its rents and profits. A suit for declaration and consequential relief is not defeated merely because the heirs of a deceased defendant were not joined when the effective contest continued against the parties in possession.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2016 18:22:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430260" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (4) TMI 113 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183218</link>
      <description>Where a lease demises land alone and requires the lessee to erect, insure, maintain and surrender a building without compensation on expiry, the building remains the lessee&#039;s property during the term unless the deed clearly provides otherwise. A covenant to hand over the structure at the end of the lease does not itself transfer ownership to the lessor. Rent-control protection for the land does not defeat a separate claim to title in the building or to its rents and profits. A suit for declaration and consequential relief is not defeated merely because the heirs of a deceased defendant were not joined when the effective contest continued against the parties in possession.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>