REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

B.P.PATHAK Appellant

V/S

RIYAZUDDIN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HEYDON'S CASE' [REFERRED TO]
CUTTING V. DERBY [REFERRED TO]
BEBINGTON V. WILDMAN [REFERRED TO]
DOE DE WHAYMAN V. CHAPLIN [REFERRED TO]
RAMALALL V. CHUNDRABULLI [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR CHUNDER DUTT V. RAM KRISHNA DAS [REFERRED TO]
DAULATSINGH V. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
SMT. DURGA RANI DEVI V. MOHIUDDIN [REFERRED TO]
SYED AHMAD V. MAGNESITE SYNDICATE LTD. [REFERRED TO]
HARIHAR BANERJI V. RAMSASHI ROY [REFERRED TO]
KANNYAN V. ALIKUTTI [REFERRED TO]
SMITH V. KINSEY [REFERRED TO]
MANIKKAM V. RATHANSAMI [REFERRED TO]
KORAPALU V. NARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
DEVASY GEORGE V. LEKSHMI AMMA [REFERRED TO]
SKATTAR SINGH V. RAWELA [REFERRED TO]
BANARSILAL V. BHAGWAN [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL IMMUNITY COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
S SANYAL VS. GIAN CHAND [REFERRED TO]
PULIN BEHARY SHAW VS. LILA DEY [REFERRED TO]
NATHULAL VS. RATANSI [REFERRED TO]
PYARELALSA VS. GARANCHANDSA [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA SARDARMAL LALWANI VS. RADHAVALLABH SALIGRAM [REFERRED TO]
SHANTARAM LAXMANRAO KEKRE VS. SHYAM SUNDAR [REFERRED TO]
KANWAR BEHARI VS. VINDHYA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
VINAYAK SHAMRAO VS. MORESHWAR GANESH PHADE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Whether a transferee of part of the property leased can terminate the lease with respect to the part transferred to him by giving quit notice to the tenant."

(2.) The plaintiff, Dr. Riyazuddin, averred in the plaint that he purchased a portion of Nazul Plot No. 40/2, measuring 89' x 108', from its previous owner E. Ashok Rao and others, by a registered deed of sale, The vendors simultaneously delivered possession of the plot. The suit plot had been taken on lease by B. P. Pathak (defendant No. 1) from the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title for storing coal, etc. on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/-, when he worked as a coal contractor. Later on, B. P. Pathak unauthorisedly erected temporary structures and sublet the same to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for being used for residential purposes, keeping a portion for himself. The remaining portion of the land is being used for growing vegetables by defendant No. 4, at the instance of defendant No. 1. The occupation of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 is unauthorised and unlawful. Defendant No. 1 is in arrears of rent from October 17, 1966 to June 30, 1968, which he has not deposited in spite of notice. The plaintiff, who is a Doctor of Medicine requires the aforesaid accommodation to build his clinic and dispensary and such building could not be constructed without the accommodation (plot) being vacated. The plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of defendant No. 1 by notice.

(3.) One of the pleas in defence was that the notice terminating the tenancy was not valid. It was alleged that the defendant Pathak was a tenant of plot, measuring 50' x 350' and the plaintiff, being an assignee only of a part of the demised premises, cannot terminate the tenancy with respect to the part assigned to him.

Click here to view full judgment.

B P PATHAK Vs. RIYAZUDDIN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address