<?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>2010 (2) TMI 1293 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297467</link>
    <description>A decree for possession on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 was considered justified where pleadings and admitted documents showed a landlord-tenant relationship, monthly rent, and service of notice to quit. The expired written arrangement and its arbitration clause could not control a later oral month-to-month tenancy, so the clause could not defeat eviction. The commentary also notes that a prior final finding on the nature of the relationship operated as res judicata, and that rent may take forms beyond money under the Transfer of Property Act. On the admitted facts, the requirements for possession were treated as satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2021 16:40:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1293 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297467</link>
      <description>A decree for possession on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 was considered justified where pleadings and admitted documents showed a landlord-tenant relationship, monthly rent, and service of notice to quit. The expired written arrangement and its arbitration clause could not control a later oral month-to-month tenancy, so the clause could not defeat eviction. The commentary also notes that a prior final finding on the nature of the relationship operated as res judicata, and that rent may take forms beyond money under the Transfer of Property Act. On the admitted facts, the requirements for possession were treated as satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>