https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468466 A void later lease cannot operate as an implied surrender of an earlier valid lease, because surrender by operation of law requires a valid and effective subsequent tenancy. The earlier lease therefore remained subsisting where the permanent lease was void under the governing religious endowments law. Destruction of the leased house by fire did not automatically determine the sub-lease; the statutory option to treat the lease as void had to be clearly exercised and possession yielded up. Mere permission from the head lessor to erect a hut was not an unambiguous surrender. The plaintiff remained entitled to recover possession. en-us Mon, 16 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 May 2026 18:50:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468466 A void later lease cannot operate as an implied surrender of an earlier valid lease, because surrender by operation of law requires a valid and effective subsequent tenancy. The earlier lease therefore remained subsisting where the permanent lease was void under the governing religious endowments law. Destruction of the leased house by fire did not automatically determine the sub-lease; the statutory option to treat the lease as void had to be clearly exercised and possession yielded up. Mere permission from the head lessor to erect a hut was not an unambiguous surrender. The plaintiff remained entitled to recover possession. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468466