https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198376 An unregistered lease deed could not be relied on to enforce a tenancy restriction requiring occupation only by a named officer, because that clause was an essential term affecting rights in immovable property and not a mere collateral purpose. The landlord therefore could not use Clause 9 to support eviction. The tenant's use of the premises by another officer also did not amount to change of user under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, because the premises continued to be used for residential occupation and the lease purpose had not changed. On that basis, no legally sustainable ground for eviction was made out. en-us Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Dec 2023 14:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198376 An unregistered lease deed could not be relied on to enforce a tenancy restriction requiring occupation only by a named officer, because that clause was an essential term affecting rights in immovable property and not a mere collateral purpose. The landlord therefore could not use Clause 9 to support eviction. The tenant's use of the premises by another officer also did not amount to change of user under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, because the premises continued to be used for residential occupation and the lease purpose had not changed. On that basis, no legally sustainable ground for eviction was made out. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198376