The Supreme Court in the matter of The Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Limited vs. Nagraj Ganeshmal Jain decided on 26th July, 2017, being Civil Appeal Nos. 009777-009778 of 2017 has reiterated yet again that immoveable property can be transferred only by a Registered document. There can be no transfer of any right, title or interest in any immoveable property except by way of a registered document. An agreement to sell which is not a registered deed of conveyance would not meet the requirements of Section 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs. MESCO Kalinga Steel Limited; Civil Appeal no. 2545/2017, decided on 14th February, 2017 held that renewal of lease is a privilege and if a tenant wishes to claim the privilege, he must do so strictly within the time limited for the purpose. Where however, there is no time limit, an application may be made within a reasonable time.
Delhi High Court in the matter titled as Ram Niwas Singh Vs. Rajendra Singh, RSA 25/2017 decided on 20.01.2017, held that co-owners to a property can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property. It was also re-emphasized that there is hardly any distinction between a suit for eviction and recovery of possession against a tenant after determination of tenancy, which determination only a co-owner is allowed to do and thereafter, maintain a suit for eviction of such tenant.
It was held as not within ken of the High Court in writ jurisdiction to declare any property as unencumbered one. Such rights between private parties cannot be made subject-matter of writ jurisdiction and to a direction of maintaining status quo on such properties.
The Supreme Court was dealing with a matter wherein a suit for declaration was instituted by a person seeking to be declared as the sole owner of a property. The property in dispute belonged to the predecessor of the Plaintiff and the defendant. Upon the death of the predecessor, as per Hindu Succession Act, the property fell equally in the share of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Defendant permitted the name of the Plaintiff to be recorded in the revune records, which position subsisted for a long period of time.
Rent is the consideration paid for use and occupation of property and in broader sense, it is the compensation or fee paid, usually periodically, for the use of the rented property, land, buildings, equipment and the like.
The theory of double protection or additional protection has been stretched too far and without a proper and due consideration of all its remifications.It was accordingly held that no notice to quit is necessary under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in order to enable the landlord to get an order of eviction against the tenant.
Merely because property in relation to which agreement was entered upon is no longer subject to any order of restrain, party seeking specific performance does not automatically becomes entitled to such relief.
A Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of matters falling under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act as such matters comes under the jurisdiction of the DRT and the Appellate Tribunal