TMI Blog1967 (12) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that there was no tenancy and, in fact, he was the owner of the premises in question. He has claimed ownership on the ground that be had purchased the property from the mother of the petitioner and that owing to subsequent differences an understanding was arrived at that he should relinquish his rights in favour of the vendor on her repaying him a sum of ₹ 300. Since this sum was not paid, he continued to be in possession. This is denied by the original petitioner. It is unnecessary to set out the other facts and circumstances alleged by the parties as they are not necessary for the purpose of disposal of the present petition. 3. The Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that tenancy alleged by the landlord had not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he first time in revision. Since it goes to the very root of the maintainability of the petition for eviction as his very right to obtain possession depends on the termination of tenancy in accordance with law, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it may not be just or proper to prevent the petitioner from urging this ground. Hence, the argument of Sri Ron in this behalf cannot be accepted. 6. In Mohamed Abdul Rahman's case, 1964-2 Mys LJ 465 this Court was directly concerned with a case arising under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954. It was held therein that an application for eviction under S. 10(1) of the Hyderabad Act could not be maintained before the tenancy has been determined by a n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... afford ground for holding that the landlord has assented to a new contractual tenancy. Again at page 1070, it is observed as follows: Of course, there is no prohibition against a landlord entering into a fresh contract of tenancy with a tenant whose right of occupation is determined and who remains in occupation by virtue of the statutory immunity. Apart from an express contract, conduct of the parties may undoubtedly justify an inference that after determination of the contractual tenancy, the landlord had entered into a fresh contract with the tenant, but whether the conduct justifies such an inference must always depend upon the facts of each case. Occupation of premises by a tenant whose tenancy is determined is by virtue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the question of notice to quit for the purpose of determination of a lease. 10. In Punjalal Bhagwandin v. Bhagwatprasad Prabhuprasad, it is observed thus: ... A tenant stood in no need of protection against eviction by the landlord so long as he had the necessary protection under the terms of the contract between him and his landlord. He could not be evicted till his tenancy was determined according to law and therefore there was no necessity for providing any further protection in the Act against his eviction so long as his tenancy continued to exist under the contract. Again in page 9 of the same page the following passage occurs: ... Ordinarily, the landlord will have a right to recover possession from the tenant when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndlord to the tenant or by the tenant to the landlord. Such a notice is essential for bringing to an end the relationship of landlord and tenant. Unless the relationship is validly terminated the landlord does not get the right to obtain possession of the premises by evicting the tenant. S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act does not provide for the satisfaction of any additional requirements.... 11. In view of the above enunciation of the position by the Supreme Court on the question of requirement of notice under S. 106 of the T.P. Act for the purpose of effectually terminating a tenancy for a landlord to earn the right to obtain possession of a leased premises, the contention of Sri Ron deserves to be rejected. As already observed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
