https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312484 A tenancy treated as beginning in January 1939 supported the notice to quit, because the parties' rent arrangement and admissions were accepted, while the unregistered kirayanama was held inadmissible. Once excluded, the occupants' status was no better than tenants at will, so a mere demand for possession was sufficient and no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was required. The suit for ejectment was also maintainable in the plaintiff's name, since a benamidar may sue for possession in his own name and Order I Rule 8 CPC was unnecessary. The decree for possession was upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs. 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 A tenancy treated as beginning in January 1939 supported the notice to quit, because the parties' rent arrangement and admissions were accepted, while the unregistered kirayanama was held inadmissible. Once excluded, the occupants' status was no better than tenants at will, so a mere demand for possession was sufficient and no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was required. The suit for ejectment was also maintainable in the plaintiff's name, since a benamidar may sue for possession in his own name and Order I Rule 8 CPC was unnecessary. The decree for possession was upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Jan 1946 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312484