https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277697 The plaintiff sought possession of property under a Mulgeni lease and arrears of rent due to forfeiture of the Mulgeni chit. The lower courts dismissed the suit, but the District Judge held that alienations by lessees did not violate the lease terms. The Court of Appeal ruled that allowing one joint lessee to enjoy the property did not breach the covenant. The conveyance of a lessor's interest to their daughter was contested but found permissible. The issue of waiver of forfeiture was clarified, with the court determining that seeking rent in an ejectment suit does not waive forfeiture. The appeal was allowed, granting the plaintiff possession of the property and costs. en-us Fri, 20 Aug 1926 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:47:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277697 The plaintiff sought possession of property under a Mulgeni lease and arrears of rent due to forfeiture of the Mulgeni chit. The lower courts dismissed the suit, but the District Judge held that alienations by lessees did not violate the lease terms. The Court of Appeal ruled that allowing one joint lessee to enjoy the property did not breach the covenant. The conveyance of a lessor's interest to their daughter was contested but found permissible. The issue of waiver of forfeiture was clarified, with the court determining that seeking rent in an ejectment suit does not waive forfeiture. The appeal was allowed, granting the plaintiff possession of the property and costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Aug 1926 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277697