https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289866 An earlier land acquisition reference dealing only with apportionment of compensation did not operate as res judicata in a later suit for possession, because observations on rent and lease determination were incidental to that limited issue and not the matter directly in controversy. In a landlord's suit for possession against a lessee after expiry of the lease, the specific limitation article governing such landlord-tenant claims applied; the lessee became a tenant at sufferance on expiry, and mere non-payment of rent did not by itself establish forfeiture. The suit was within limitation, and Article 67 applied rather than Article 66. en-us Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Aug 2020 17:17:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289866 An earlier land acquisition reference dealing only with apportionment of compensation did not operate as res judicata in a later suit for possession, because observations on rent and lease determination were incidental to that limited issue and not the matter directly in controversy. In a landlord's suit for possession against a lessee after expiry of the lease, the specific limitation article governing such landlord-tenant claims applied; the lessee became a tenant at sufferance on expiry, and mere non-payment of rent did not by itself establish forfeiture. The suit was within limitation, and Article 67 applied rather than Article 66. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289866