https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289858 A suit for ejectment under the Transfer of Property Act depends on termination of the tenancy by efflux of time or by a valid notice to quit. Where an earlier ejectment suit was dismissed for default, that dismissal does not extinguish the landlord's reversionary rights or create a tenancy in perpetuity; at most, it may amount to waiver of the earlier notice or assent to continued occupation, restoring a month-to-month tenancy. Because each tenancy month is treated as a fresh renewal, a later notice to quit gives rise to a new cause of action. On that reasoning, a second suit based on a fresh notice is not barred by Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. en-us Fri, 28 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Aug 2020 14:14:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289858 A suit for ejectment under the Transfer of Property Act depends on termination of the tenancy by efflux of time or by a valid notice to quit. Where an earlier ejectment suit was dismissed for default, that dismissal does not extinguish the landlord's reversionary rights or create a tenancy in perpetuity; at most, it may amount to waiver of the earlier notice or assent to continued occupation, restoring a month-to-month tenancy. Because each tenancy month is treated as a fresh renewal, a later notice to quit gives rise to a new cause of action. On that reasoning, a second suit based on a fresh notice is not barred by Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289858