REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

ULIGAPPA Appellant

V/S

S.MOHAN RAO, MINOR BY GUARDIAN CHANGAMMA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

CHELTENHAM RAILWAY CO. [REFERRED TO]
LORD HALSBURY IN QUINN V. LEOTHEM [REFERRED TO]
INLAND REVENUE COMMISIONERS V. HINCHY [REFERRED TO]
CARTER V. CARBURETTER CO. [REFERRED TO]
REFERRING TO MONNATHA NATH V. BANARASI [REFERRED TO]
VENKATRATNAM V. LALLURAM [REFERRED TO]
SURYANARAYANA ROW V. SOMAYYAL AND MOOSA KUTTY V THEKK [REFERRED TO]
PARTHASARATHY V. KRISHNAMORTHY [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMURTHY V. PARTHASARATHY [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR RAMAKRISHNA V. G. G. DESAI [REFERRED TO]
SCRUTTONS,LTD V. MIDLAND SILICANES,LTD. [REFERRED TO]
KUPPUSWAMY V. MAHADEVA [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. GOUS V. KARUNNISA BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
RANJALKAR V. MANGALGIRI KHAJAMIAH [REFERRED TO]
RANGASWAMI NAIDU V. BANGARU CHETTY [REFERRED TO]
RAVAL AND CO. V. RAMACHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
MANGILAL V. STATE OF MADHYA PRGDESH [REFERRED TO]
ABBASKHAI V. GULAMNABI [REFERRED TO]
MANGILAL V. SUGAN CHAND [REFERRED TO]
RAI BRIJ RAJ KRISHNA VS. S K SHAW [REFERRED TO]
ASWINI KUMAR GHOSE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY CALCUTTA HIGH COURT INTERVENERS VS. ARABINDA BOSE [REFERRED TO]
KANAI LAL SUR VS. PARAMNIDHI SADHUKHAN [REFERRED TO]
WAMAN SHRINIWAS KINI VS. RATILAL BHAGWANDAS AND CO [REFERRED TO]
BHAIYA PUNJALAL BHAGWANDDIN VS. DAVE BHAGWATPRASAD PRABHUPRA SAD [REFERRED TO]
POORAN CHAND VS. MOTILAL [REFERRED TO]
VORA ABBASBHAI ALIMAHOMED VS. HAJI GULAMNABI HAJI SAFIBHAI [REFERRED TO]
MANGILAL VS. SUGAN CHAIID RATHIDECEASED AND AFTER HIM HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES [REFERRED TO]
MANUJENDRA DUTT VS. PURNEDU PROSAD ROY CHOWDHURY [REFERRED TO]
SIDDAPPA ADIVEPPA ROKHADI VS. VENKATESH RAGHAVENDRA HUBBALLI [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA VS. CHINMOYEE SEN [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GANI VS. MD ISRAIL [REFERRED TO]
ABANI KUMAR GOSWAMI VS. RAMGOPAL PATWARI [REFERRED TO]
A C PATEL VS. VISHWANATH CHADA [REFERRED TO]
ADIT PRASAD VS. CHHAGANLAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question, which must necessarily by answered in this batch of revision petitions, is whether the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act (XV of 1960), hereinafter called "the Act" is a self contained Code governing relationship between lardlord and tenant, and therefore it is unnecessary to determine the tenancy by the landlord by the, issue of a notice under section 111 (g) or 111 (h) read with section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before a petition for eviction is filed on any one of the grourds under section 10 of the Act.

(2.) In order to answer this question effectively, it is necessary to know as to In what setting section 106 oi the Transfer of Property Act appears. Chapter V. of the Transfer of Property Act concerns itself with the lease of immovable property. The provisions of that Chapter apply to all leases except agricultural leases. These provisions do not apply unless there is a notification issued by the State Government under Sectioa 117 of the Transfer of Property Act to make Chapter V applicable to such leases.

(3.) Section 105 defines the term 'lease'. Section 106 pertains to the duration of certain leases. In the absence of written contract, local law or usage the Section applies. The Section being relevant must be read in full:

Click here to view full judgment.

ULIGAPPA Vs. S MOHAN RAO MINOR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address