https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292966 The court rejected the appellant's claims regarding the existence of a ten-year lease agreement, month-to-month tenancy by holding over, validity of the notice to quit, and consideration of subsequent events. It concluded that there was no binding agreement for a ten-year lease, no month-to-month tenancy, the notice to quit was valid, and the alleged ten-year lease had expired during the trial. The court dismissed the appeal, denied a certificate for appeal to SC, and stayed ejectment proceedings for two months for the appellant to seek special leave from SC. en-us Mon, 07 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jan 2021 17:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292966 The court rejected the appellant's claims regarding the existence of a ten-year lease agreement, month-to-month tenancy by holding over, validity of the notice to quit, and consideration of subsequent events. It concluded that there was no binding agreement for a ten-year lease, no month-to-month tenancy, the notice to quit was valid, and the alleged ten-year lease had expired during the trial. The court dismissed the appeal, denied a certificate for appeal to SC, and stayed ejectment proceedings for two months for the appellant to seek special leave from SC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 07 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292966