https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312484 The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the tenancy commenced in January 1939, as the defendants admitted liability for rent from that date. The plaintiff, acting as a benamidar, was entitled to maintain the suit for possession against the defendants without needing permission under Order 1, Rule 8 CPC. The notice of ejectment was deemed valid, and costs were awarded against the appellant. This judgment underscores the legal standing of a benamidar to sue for possession and clarifies the commencement date of tenancy and the validity of ejectment notices in tenancy disputes. en-us Fri, 11 Jan 1946 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Feb 2024 11:46:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312484 The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the tenancy commenced in January 1939, as the defendants admitted liability for rent from that date. The plaintiff, acting as a benamidar, was entitled to maintain the suit for possession against the defendants without needing permission under Order 1, Rule 8 CPC. The notice of ejectment was deemed valid, and costs were awarded against the appellant. This judgment underscores the legal standing of a benamidar to sue for possession and clarifies the commencement date of tenancy and the validity of ejectment notices in tenancy disputes. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Jan 1946 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312484