<?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>1945 (4) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273578</link>
    <description>A monthly tenancy is determined by fifteen days&#039; notice expiring with the end of a tenancy month, and Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act does not govern the expiry of notice for such a tenancy. Because the tenancy here began on the first day of a month, notice had to end with the last day of a month; the notice to quit was therefore valid. Section 13 of the Bihar House Rent Control Order, 1942 protects only a tenant or statutory tenant, not a person whose tenancy had already been validly determined and against whom an ejectment decree had been passed before the Order operated in the area. The bar to recovery of possession did not apply, and the decree for ejectment was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 1945 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2018 15:54:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1945 (4) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273578</link>
      <description>A monthly tenancy is determined by fifteen days&#039; notice expiring with the end of a tenancy month, and Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act does not govern the expiry of notice for such a tenancy. Because the tenancy here began on the first day of a month, notice had to end with the last day of a month; the notice to quit was therefore valid. Section 13 of the Bihar House Rent Control Order, 1942 protects only a tenant or statutory tenant, not a person whose tenancy had already been validly determined and against whom an ejectment decree had been passed before the Order operated in the area. The bar to recovery of possession did not apply, and the decree for ejectment was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 1945 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>