16. It was also argued that the appeal was within the statute of limitations, since neither section 67 nor section 66 are applicable, but the applicants have the right to seek possession under section 65 of the Statute of Limitation, which gives applicants the right to demand, on the basis of their property, , possession of a detained person. It is up to the defendant to prove that his property is open, continuous and uninterrupted in order to ensure maturity. It was alleged that the defendant did not reject the lease prior to the filing of this appeal. Since, even after the expiry of the lease, the defendant was in the tenant`s possession without rent, the defendant`s possession was not that of a tenant who was there, but that of a tenant who had suffered. According to Section 116 of the TP Act, the complainant`s mere acceptance of rent leads to a new tenancy agreement or to the tenant`s S tatus as a tenant that is maintained. The complainants were free to apply for eviction for non-payment, but the respondent`s possession could not enter the title because his possession was that of a tenant tenant. It was therefore alleged that the defendant`s possession was merely permissive possession in the context of a tenancy agreement, so that the means derived from the defendant`s prejudicial possession is not available. A periodic lease allows a tenant to remain inside the property for an indeterminate period, as the lease does not have a fixed end date.
However, the lease generally provides for the date on which a termination is required and both parties are required to comply with this clause. Tags: Various types of agreement, rights of each party, transfer of property law, unfavorable property, real, unfavorable property elements, continuous law, limit law, Exclusive, Open, Hostile, Unwanted Tenant Possession, Indian law, Legal Advice, 1963 “10. At the expiry of a fixed-term lease, section 108 q of the Transfer of Ownership Act obliges the lessor to transfer the lessor in possession of the estate. Accordingly, at the end of the one-year period set out in the lease, Sahib Dayal was required to transfer Sri Krishna Das into possession of the property, in accordance with the provisions of Article 108 (q) of the Transfer of Ownership Act. If he did not, he was only a tenant whose lease had expired and who, at the expiry of the tenancy agreement, remained in illegal possession of the property.