Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

Acceptance of Rent After Contractual Tenancy Expires Does Not Amount to New Contractual Tenancy," Rules Madras High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court presided over by Mrs. Justice R. Kalaimathi, it was ruled that accepting rent after the expiration of a contractual tenancy doesn't necessarily indicate the formation of a new contractual tenancy.

The case, S.A.No.1665 of 2003, was an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.09.2003 in A.S.No.68 of 2002 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. The appellants, represented by the legal representatives of the late Y.Davidson, were disputing the recovery of possession of specific non-residential properties and permanent injunction against eviction.

One of the pivotal issues in the case was whether the first defendant, Y.Davidson, continued to be a tenant holding over after his lease had ended. "After the issuance of notice, as the plaintiff has been receiving rents, whether the first defendant gets any protection under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act?" questioned Justice Kalaimathi during the case.

In a crucial observation, the court noted, "In order to invoke Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, it has to be read along with Section 111 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, which deals with the termination of tenancy by efflux of time."

The court cited a Seven Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in V.Dhanapal Chettiar vs. Yesodai Ammal, which clarified that the issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is a mere technicality and not a necessity for eviction against a tenant under the Rent Control Act.

The ruling will set a precedent for future cases where the legal implications of rent payments after the end of a contractual tenancy are in question. "The acceptance by the landlord from the tenant, after the contractual tenancy had expired, of amounts equivalent to rent, did not amount to acceptance of a new contractual tenancy," the judgment concluded.

Date of Decision: October 19, 2023

Davidson (died) vs Nagercoil Home

Similar News