https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305816 A suit for possession was not defeated by alleged splitting of tenancy where the written lease and pleadings showed that the premises claimed matched the portion actually demised. The objection that eviction was sought from only part of the demised premises failed because no impermissible fragmentation of the tenancy was established. A lease used for manufacturing purposes did not require six months' notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 where it was for a fixed term of eleven months and the parties had expressly agreed to termination on two months' notice. The contractual notice governed, and the notice terminating the tenancy was valid. en-us Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Dec 2022 18:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305816 A suit for possession was not defeated by alleged splitting of tenancy where the written lease and pleadings showed that the premises claimed matched the portion actually demised. The objection that eviction was sought from only part of the demised premises failed because no impermissible fragmentation of the tenancy was established. A lease used for manufacturing purposes did not require six months' notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 where it was for a fixed term of eleven months and the parties had expressly agreed to termination on two months' notice. The contractual notice governed, and the notice terminating the tenancy was valid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305816