9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the tenancy created by acceptance of rent by the Receiver from the defendant on 8th March 1925. 2. Whether the landlord's assent to the defendant's continuing in possession can be inferred from the acceptance of rent in March 1926. 3. Whether any subsequent tenancy was created after the second year, despite no demand or acceptance of rent by the landlord since then. Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Tenancy Created by Acceptance of Rent in 1925 The primary issue was to determine the nature of the tenancy created by the acceptance of rent by the Receiver in 1925. The defendant contended that the tenancy was not monthly but rather for a year or more. The court noted that the tenancy was not for agricultural or manufacturing purposes but for building structures, making it a tenancy from month to month under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act unless there was a contract to the contrary. The court emphasized that the contract to the contrary must be valid and enforceable. Since the Kabuliyat (lease agreement) was not an operative document under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, the tenancy created was from month to month. The court concluded that the tenancy was from month to month since its inception in 1924, supported by several reported cases where yearly rental payments did not alter the monthly tenancy nature. 2. Landlord's Assent to Continuing Possession Inferred from Rent Acceptance in 1926 The second issue was whether the landlord's assent to the defendant's continued possession could be inferred from the acceptance of rent in March 1926. The court held that if a tenancy for one year was created in 1925, the acceptance of rent in 1926 could be seen as the landlord's assent to the defendant's holding over, thereby creating a monthly tenancy under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court found that the payment and acceptance of rent in March 1926 indicated the creation of a tenancy from month to month, as the defendant remained in possession with the landlord's permission and paid rent, establishing a new tenancy de hors the Kabuliyat. 3. Subsequent Tenancy Creation Post-Second Year The third issue was whether any subsequent tenancy was created after the second year, despite no demand or acceptance of rent by the landlord since then. The defendant argued that there was no tenancy after December 1926, making the plaintiff's suit time-barred. The court, however, found that the tenancy was from month to month since its inception, and the plaintiff's suit was not barred by limitation. The court noted that the defendant admitted in the written statement that payments to the Receiver were equivalent to payments to the plaintiff, further supporting the monthly tenancy nature. Conclusion The court concluded that the tenancy was from month to month since its inception in 1924, and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree in his favor. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the lower courts' judgments that the defendant was a monthly tenant and the notice to quit was sufficient to determine the tenancy. The appeal thus failed, and the plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession was upheld.
|
