send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
A lessee in possession disclaimed the title of the landlord, with the result that the lease was forfeited. Then the landlord filed a suit for arrears of premium and obtained a decree. Then he filed a suit to eject the lessee.
The suit is not barred
The suit is barred
either (A) or (B)
None of these
- When a lessee disclaims the title of the landlord, the lease is forfeited. The landlord can then seek remedies such as suing for arrears or for possession.
- If the landlord files a suit for arrears and obtains a decree, that action focuses on recovering the past due payments only, not possession.
- Filing a subsequent suit to eject the lessee (recover possession) is a separate cause of action and is generally not barred merely because the arrears suit was filed or decreed.
- The two suits—one for arrears, one for ejectment—are distinct. Therefore, the suit for ejectment is not barred by the prior decree for arrears of premium.
Option 1: The suit is not barred is correct.
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses