<?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>1975 (11) TMI 178 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193564</link>
    <description>A lessee of premises let for general commercial use cannot be restrained from installing machinery and running a flour mill unless the lease was limited to a specific purpose or the proposed activity is shown to be destructive or permanently injurious. Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act applies only where the use departs from a specifically restricted purpose, and it also prohibits damage to the lessor&#039;s property. On the facts described, the proposed flour mill was not enough to establish prohibited change of user, and the installation of machinery was not shown to cause damage. The injunction suit therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Aug 2017 15:42:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484664" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (11) TMI 178 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193564</link>
      <description>A lessee of premises let for general commercial use cannot be restrained from installing machinery and running a flour mill unless the lease was limited to a specific purpose or the proposed activity is shown to be destructive or permanently injurious. Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act applies only where the use departs from a specifically restricted purpose, and it also prohibits damage to the lessor&#039;s property. On the facts described, the proposed flour mill was not enough to establish prohibited change of user, and the installation of machinery was not shown to cause damage. The injunction suit therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>