<?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>2013 (8) TMI 1167 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305350</link>
    <description>Admissions in the written statement can justify a decree for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC where the landlord-tenant relationship and the last paid rent are not disputed. The defendants&#039; pleas of renovation expenses, an alleged oral extension of the lease, and objections to the notice were found insufficient to displace those clear admissions. Once the registered lease expired without execution of a fresh lease deed, the occupation continued as a month-to-month tenancy terminable by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The termination notice was treated as duly served, and the plaintiffs were entitled to possession.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2022 18:01:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=697282" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 1167 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305350</link>
      <description>Admissions in the written statement can justify a decree for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC where the landlord-tenant relationship and the last paid rent are not disputed. The defendants&#039; pleas of renovation expenses, an alleged oral extension of the lease, and objections to the notice were found insufficient to displace those clear admissions. Once the registered lease expired without execution of a fresh lease deed, the occupation continued as a month-to-month tenancy terminable by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The termination notice was treated as duly served, and the plaintiffs were entitled to possession.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305350</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>