https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81533 Cancellation of lease deed by NOIDA did not confer the Corporate Debtor the status of a tenant holding over within Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. NOIDA never assented to the Corporate Debtor's continued possession after cancellation. The Supreme Court's judgment in Nand Ram case clarified that after lease expiry, the lessee's status is a tenant at sufferance, not a tenant holding over, unless the landlord assents to continued possession, creating a new tenancy. NOIDA's mere acceptance of the Corporate Debtor's request for lease restoration did not revive the terminated lease or confer any rights u/s 116. The plot was rightly excluded from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. As a development authority, NOIDA is o..... en-us Fri, 20 Sep 2024 08:32:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Sep 2024 08:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81533 Cancellation of lease deed by NOIDA did not confer the Corporate Debtor the status of a tenant holding over within Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. NOIDA never assented to the Corporate Debtor's continued possession after cancellation. The Supreme Court's judgment in Nand Ram case clarified that after lease expiry, the lessee's status is a tenant at sufferance, not a tenant holding over, unless the landlord assents to continued possession, creating a new tenancy. NOIDA's mere acceptance of the Corporate Debtor's request for lease restoration did not revive the terminated lease or confer any rights u/s 116. The plot was rightly excluded from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. As a development authority, NOIDA is o..... Highlights IBC Fri, 20 Sep 2024 08:32:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81533