https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276584 A claimed restriction on ejectment, including a tenancy in perpetuity, was not proved because the correspondence showed no clear acceptance by the landlord and the tenant's reply amounted to a counter-offer. Such a permanent lease, if intended, required a written and registered instrument signed by the lessor; a mere kabuliyat was insufficient. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act gave no protection because no signed written contract established the alleged terms with reasonable certainty. In the absence of a proved contract to the contrary, the monthly tenancy was validly terminated by notice under section 106. The claim for credit for municipal taxes and repairs was not entertained, and the decree for ejectment and arrears of rent was sustained. en-us Thu, 17 Sep 1936 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Nov 2018 11:32:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276584 A claimed restriction on ejectment, including a tenancy in perpetuity, was not proved because the correspondence showed no clear acceptance by the landlord and the tenant's reply amounted to a counter-offer. Such a permanent lease, if intended, required a written and registered instrument signed by the lessor; a mere kabuliyat was insufficient. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act gave no protection because no signed written contract established the alleged terms with reasonable certainty. In the absence of a proved contract to the contrary, the monthly tenancy was validly terminated by notice under section 106. The claim for credit for municipal taxes and repairs was not entertained, and the decree for ejectment and arrears of rent was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Sep 1936 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276584