Site navigation

A tenant rented an entire property. A purchaser later bought an undivided share in the landlord’s…

The Full Bench held that selling a share did not itself divide the rent. Apportionment by agreement required the consent of all parties concerned. If no agreement was…

Choose your answer

A tenant rented an entire property. A purchaser later bought an undivided share in the landlord’s interest. Under the Calcutta High Court’s 1880 Full Bench ruling in Ishwar Chunder Dutt v. Ram Krishna Dass, whose consent was needed to apportion the rent by agreement?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer A

The Full Bench held that selling a share did not itself divide the rent. Apportionment by agreement required the consent of all parties concerned.

If no agreement was possible after giving the tenant due notice, the purchaser could seek judicial apportionment by suing the tenant and joining the other co-sharers.

Option feedback

Option A

Apportionment by agreement required the consent of all parties concerned.

Option B

The sale parties’ consent alone left out the tenant and any other co-sharers.

Option C

The purchaser and tenant alone could not agree on an apportionment binding the other co-sharers.

Option D

The co-sharers’ consent alone was insufficient for consensual apportionment without the tenant.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic