<?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>1951 (8) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289521</link>
    <description>A notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was held valid where the tenancy was a monthly tenancy linked to the Bengali calendar month. Read as a whole, the notice showed an intention to require the tenant to vacate at the end of the tenancy month, and the reference to fifteen days after service did not invalidate it because the tenant was given at least fifteen days and asked to leave within the month of Pous. The argument that all monthly tenancies must follow the English calendar by virtue of Section 33 of the General Clauses Act was rejected, and the decree for eviction was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2020 09:32:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619064" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (8) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289521</link>
      <description>A notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was held valid where the tenancy was a monthly tenancy linked to the Bengali calendar month. Read as a whole, the notice showed an intention to require the tenant to vacate at the end of the tenancy month, and the reference to fifteen days after service did not invalidate it because the tenant was given at least fifteen days and asked to leave within the month of Pous. The argument that all monthly tenancies must follow the English calendar by virtue of Section 33 of the General Clauses Act was rejected, and the decree for eviction was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>