https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183875 After expiry of a fixed-term lease and the end of requisition under a temporary statute, the former lessees had no subsisting contractual or statutory right to demand return of possession. The requisition transferred only physical possession to the State, while ownership remained with the owners, and the operative direction for restoration had to be assessed on the basis of entitlement at the time of release from requisition. The Court held that prior occupation and protection against forcible dispossession did not create a continuing right to repossess, and the facts did not establish holding over because landlord consent was absent. Possession was therefore to be restored to the owners, and the challenge to that direction failed. en-us Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:28:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183875 After expiry of a fixed-term lease and the end of requisition under a temporary statute, the former lessees had no subsisting contractual or statutory right to demand return of possession. The requisition transferred only physical possession to the State, while ownership remained with the owners, and the operative direction for restoration had to be assessed on the basis of entitlement at the time of release from requisition. The Court held that prior occupation and protection against forcible dispossession did not create a continuing right to repossess, and the facts did not establish holding over because landlord consent was absent. Possession was therefore to be restored to the owners, and the challenge to that direction failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183875