GANGA DUTT MURARKA versus KARTIK CHANDRA DAS AND OTHERS.

GANGA DUTT MURARKA versus KARTIK CHANDRA DAS AND OTHERS.

Acceptance of rent by the landlord from a tenant remaining in possession after expiry or determination of a contractual tenancy, where rent control statutes apply, does not create a tenancy holding over; occupation is by statutory protection, and no notice under s. 106 is required to end such occupation.

Parties
Appellant: Ganga Dutt Murarka; Respondents: Kartik Chandra Das and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 February 1961
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decree
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Eviction, Determination of Lease, Statutory Tenancy, Holding Over, Transfer of Property Act, Rent Control
Landlord Tenant Eviction Determination of Lease Statutory Tenancy Holding Over Transfer of Property Act Rent Control

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ganga Dutt Murarka

Appellant

Kartik Chandra Das and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acceptance of rent after expiry of contractual tenancy under rent control statutes constitutes creation of a new tenancy under s. 116 of the Transfer of Property Act.
  2. 2 Whether occupation of premises after expiry of contractual tenancy under rent control protection requires a fresh notice under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Acceptance of rent by the landlord from a tenant remaining in possession after expiry or determination of a contractual tenancy, where rent control statutes apply, does not create a tenancy holding over; occupation is by statutory protection, and no notice under s. 106 is required to end such occupation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.