What are modes for extinguishment of tenancy rights?

 It is an admitted position that the relationship between the Petitioner tenant and Respondent landlord was governed by the provisions of Bombay Rent Act, 1947. Once such relationship was governed by the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 there can only be two modes of exstinguishment of tenancy rights. The first is by an express surrender of tenancy by a tenant which is not the case in hand. The second mode of extinguishment of tenancy is by a decree of competent Court. In V. Dhanpal Chettiar v/s. Yesodai Ammal MANU/SC/0505/1979 : 1979 (4) SCC 214 : AIR 1979 SC 1745, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has clearly held that in respect of the premises governed by the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, the tenancy does not get terminated even by issuance of a notice of termination of tenancy and can come to an end only by a decree of a competent Court. This legal position is well established.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Application No. 115 of 2010

Decided On: 10.01.2012

 Pius Bonaventure Fernandes Vs. Manu Narang

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Godbole, J.

Citation: 2012(2) RCJ 77 Bom

Print Page

Whether title in property can be created or extinguished on the basis of mutation entries?

 In addition to the abovementioned reason, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents that the Appellants failed to get the mutation of entries of the suit land incorporated in record shows that there was no intention on their part to act upon the contents of the two sale deeds, cannot be accepted as mere mutation of entries does not confer title upon the deceased Respondent No. 1 in the immovable property. In the case of Sawarni v. Index Kaur and Ors. MANU/SC/0730/1996 : (1996) 6 SCC 223, this Court held as under:

7...Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment....

22. In the case of Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and Ors.MANU/SC/0065/1994 : (1993) 4 SCC 349, this Court held that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title in respect of an immoveable property. In the case of Jattu Ram v.Hakam Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0399/1994 : (1993) 4 SCC 403, this Court observed that entries made by patwari in official record are only for the purpose of records and do not by itself prove the correctness of the same nor can statutory presumption be drawn on the same, particularly, in the absence of corroborative evidence. The Respondent cannot claim to have acquired title over the suit property by pleading adverse possession only in the absence of the name of the Appellants in the revenue records. In the case of Thakur Kishan Singh (Dead) v. Arvind Kumar MANU/SC/0015/1995 : (1994) 6 SCC 591 and P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Ors. v. Revamma and Ors.MANU/SC/7325/2007 : (2007) 6 SCC 59, this Court held that in cases where the possession was initially permissive, the burden lies heavily on that person alleging adverse possession to prove that the possession has become adverse. Mere possession for long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2151 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2489 of 2011)

Decided On: 01.03.2016

Prem Nath Khanna  Vs.  Narinder Nath Kapoor and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:V. Gopala Gowda and U.U. Lalit, JJ.

Citation; AIR 2016 SC1433

Print Page

Whether mother can relinquish her interest in property without written instrument?

Transfer of Property Act (IX of 1882), Section 9 - Indian Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Section 17--Extinguishment of interest in Immovable property whether can be made orally--Oral relinquishment by mother of her interest in Hindu joint family property exceeding Rs. 100 in value whether valid and effective.

A mere extinguishment of an interest in Immovable property is not required to be in writing and may be made orally.

The relinquishment, therefore, by the mother of her interest in Hindu joint family property, when the property consists of immovable property and the value of her share therein exceeds Rs. 100, can be effected without a written instrument, though if one is executed, it would require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Bombay High Court

Ramdas Chimna vs Pralhad Deorao And Ors. on 13 March, 1964

Equivalent citations: AIR 1965 Bom 74, (1964) 66 BOMLR 499, ILR 1964 Bom 702

Bench: Kantawala

Print Page