https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193686 A 199-year lease was held to continue according to its contractual term despite the lessee-company's winding up, and the Bombay Rent Act could not be used to recover possession before expiry where the lease deed itself did not provide a corresponding forfeiture ground. The lessee's leasehold interest remained transferable under the Transfer of Property Act because the deed did not exclude that right and no contrary local usage was shown; the objection based on absence of prior notice was premature. The lease was found to be in favour of the company, and no actionable change of user was established because the deed did not impose a specific restrictive purpose. en-us Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Aug 2017 12:19:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193686 A 199-year lease was held to continue according to its contractual term despite the lessee-company's winding up, and the Bombay Rent Act could not be used to recover possession before expiry where the lease deed itself did not provide a corresponding forfeiture ground. The lessee's leasehold interest remained transferable under the Transfer of Property Act because the deed did not exclude that right and no contrary local usage was shown; the objection based on absence of prior notice was premature. The lease was found to be in favour of the company, and no actionable change of user was established because the deed did not impose a specific restrictive purpose. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193686