<?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>1954 (7) TMI 29 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289524</link>
    <description>An unregistered rent-note signed only by the tenant may be used to corroborate an oral lease accompanied by delivery of possession, because it is not itself a bilateral lease deed requiring registration. A person who acquires the leased property by partition and gives notice of the change in title may maintain proceedings against the tenant, as the principle governing transfer of the lessor&#039;s interest applies. A notice to quit expressed in the Samwat calendar was not treated as invalid where that calendar governed the tenancy. A unilateral demand for enhanced rent did not create enforceable liability, and damages for holding over were not warranted on the record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2020 09:47:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (7) TMI 29 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289524</link>
      <description>An unregistered rent-note signed only by the tenant may be used to corroborate an oral lease accompanied by delivery of possession, because it is not itself a bilateral lease deed requiring registration. A person who acquires the leased property by partition and gives notice of the change in title may maintain proceedings against the tenant, as the principle governing transfer of the lessor&#039;s interest applies. A notice to quit expressed in the Samwat calendar was not treated as invalid where that calendar governed the tenancy. A unilateral demand for enhanced rent did not create enforceable liability, and damages for holding over were not warranted on the record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>