Skip to content


Manilal Dalpatram Vs. Nandlal Keshavlal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Second Appeal No. 513 of 1917
Judge
Reported in(1920)22BOMLR133
AppellantManilal Dalpatram
RespondentNandlal Keshavlal
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....for a period of seven years in 1894. the lease further provided that if the lessee wished to continue the lease he could take it on lease from the lessor on the same condition. when the lease expired in 1301 nothing was done to renew it; but the lessee remained in possession. he was sued in 1913 in ejectment, when he contended that he was a permanent tenant of the lands:-;that whatever rights the lessee had between 1901 and l908 to ask for specific performance of the agreement to extend the lease for another seven years, those rights came to an end after 1908; and that he continued thereafter as an annual tenant. - - clearly whatever rights the appellant had between 1901 and 1908 to ask for specific performance of the agreement to extend the lease for another seven years, those..........and it was agreed, that if on the expiration of the perl(sic) lessee again intended to keep the field on santh from the lessor, the lessee might keep the field on santh on the same conditions. that meant that in 1001 when the first term expired, the tenant had a right or the option to ask for a renewal for another seven years. the case of in re purmanandas jeewandas i.l.r.(1882) bom. 109 is more directly in point than the english authorities we are referred to. clearly whatever rights the appellant had between 1901 and 1908 to ask for specific performance of the agreement to extend the lease for another seven years, those rights must have come to an end after 1908. thereafter he continued as an annual tenant. in any event no notice was given that he wanted to set up any such right as.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. This case was rightly decided by the lower appellate Court. The original defendant who is now an insolvent took a lease from the plaintiff in 1894 for (sic) years, and it was agreed, that if on the expiration of the perl(sic) lessee again intended to keep the field on Santh from the lessor, the lessee might keep the field on Santh on the same conditions. That meant that in 1001 when the first term expired, the tenant had a right or the option to ask for a renewal for another seven years. The case of In re Purmanandas Jeewandas I.L.R.(1882) Bom. 109 is more directly in point than the English authorities we are referred to. Clearly whatever rights the appellant had between 1901 and 1908 to ask for specific performance of the agreement to extend the lease for another seven years, those rights must have come to an end after 1908. Thereafter he continued as an annual tenant. In any event no notice was given that he wanted to set up any such right as is claimed by the Receiver of his estate. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //