https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284735 Rent-control rights under Section 8 were available only where a legal landlord-tenant relationship existed. The court held that "letting" required a valid lease under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, and because no lease had been executed in the manner required by Section 47 of the Punjab Municipal Act, no tenancy came into existence. Payment described as rent or licence fee did not change that status. Estoppel could not override the statute, and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act could not be used affirmatively to create tenancy rights. The applications for fixation of standard rent were therefore dismissed. en-us Wed, 25 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Dec 2019 14:46:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284735 Rent-control rights under Section 8 were available only where a legal landlord-tenant relationship existed. The court held that "letting" required a valid lease under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, and because no lease had been executed in the manner required by Section 47 of the Punjab Municipal Act, no tenancy came into existence. Payment described as rent or licence fee did not change that status. Estoppel could not override the statute, and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act could not be used affirmatively to create tenancy rights. The applications for fixation of standard rent were therefore dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284735