BHAWANJI LAKHAMSHI & ORS. versus HIMATLAL JAMNADAS DANI & ORS.

BHAWANJI LAKHAMSHI & ORS. versus HIMATLAL JAMNADAS DANI & ORS.

There was no tenancy by holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act as the appellants continued in possession only by virtue of statutory protection, not by bilateral agreement with the landlord; mere acceptance of rent was not sufficient to imply a new tenancy.

Parties
Appellants: Bhawanji Lakhamsi & Others; Respondents: Himatlal Jamnadas Dani & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 December 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Order Under Article 227 of the Constitution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tenancy by Holding Over, Statutory Tenancy, Termination of Lease, Notice Requirement
Property Law Rent Control Contract Law Tenancy by Holding Over Statutory Tenancy Termination of Lease Notice Requirement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhawanji Lakhamsi & Others

Appellants

Himatlal Jamnadas Dani & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Order Under Article 227 of the Constitution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether continued possession and acceptance of rent after efflux of time creates a new tenancy by holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act when the tenant is protected by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947
  2. 2 Whether statutory tenants are entitled to notice under the Transfer of Property Act

Ratio Decidendi

There was no tenancy by holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act as the appellants continued in possession only by virtue of statutory protection, not by bilateral agreement with the landlord; mere acceptance of rent was not sufficient to imply a new tenancy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants granted three months' time from the date of judgment to vacate the premises in compliance with their undertaking.