Showing posts with label relinquishment of tenancy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relinquishment of tenancy. Show all posts

Sunday, 30 September 2018

Whether lease can be surrendered unilaterally?

A surrender under clauses (e) and (f) of section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, is an yielding up of the term of the lessee's interest to him who has the immediate reversion or the lessor's interest. It takes effect like a contract by mutual consent on the lessor's acceptance of the act of the lessee. The lessee cannot, therefore, surrender unless the term is vested in him; and the surrender must be to a person in whom the immediate reversion expectant on the term is vested. Implied surrender by operation of law occurs by the creation of a new relationship, or by relinquishment of possession. It the lessee accepts a new lease that in itself is a surrender. Surrender can also be implied from the consent of the parties or from such facts as the relinquishment of possession by the lessee and taking over possession by the lessor. Relinquishment of possession operates as an implied surrender. There must be a taking of possession, not necessarily a physical taking, but something amounting to a virtual taking of possession. Whether this has occurred is a question of fact.
Supreme Court of India
Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co vs Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors on 23 March, 1976
Print Page

Sunday, 11 March 2018

Whether civil court can decide issue as regards who was tenant after death of original tenant?

Thus, after demise of original tenant, first question from the averments in the plaint arises as to who is tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act after death of Mathuraprasad Yadav (original tenant) when according to plaint itself, Mathuraprasad Yadav left legal heirs as mentioned in gynecology in paragraph 4 of the plaint, the question arose as to who derived tenancy as under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999, legal heirs must agree as to who shall inherit tenancy from the original tenant as "tenant" within the meaning of the Act would be liable to tender rent to the landlord. In default of agreement between the legal heirs, the question can be decided by the Special court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

12. The averments in the present case also indicate that the plaintiff was claiming as one of the co-tenants. In other words, the question as to who is tenant, is not yet determined by the Special court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Thus, the question raised regarding relinquishment of tenancy rights was incidental and consequential relief which is close from the main relief as to who is tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. For all these reasons, it must be concluded, that the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable as the City Civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the question of tenancy which is required to be exclusively dealt with and decided under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. In respect of the suit premises governed by the said Act, there was a clear bar of Section 33 read with Section 7(15) Clause (d) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act for City Civil court to entertain the suit.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 2 of 2013 with Civil Application No. 3849 of 2012 in First Appeal No. 2 of 2013

Decided On: 23.10.2013

 M/s. Sanyam Realtors Private Limited Vs. Shyamji Bhagirathi Yadav and Lalchand Purushottam Yadav

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.P. Bhangale, J.
Citation: 2014(1) MHLJ 244,2014(1) AIR Bom R 98,2014(3) ALLMR 889
Print Page