you have stated that on 18/7/91 the landlady requested for a rate hike by writing a letter requesting an increase of 200 pm every three years which was duly accepted by the new company.

2) whether correspondence with land lady was done in name of new company ?

3) whether rent receipt was issued by land lady in name of new company ?kindly clarify

4) it is necessary to peruse correspondence exchanged by landlady with the new company

5) further legal notice sent by land lady and reply of your advocate needs to be perused

6) if landlady has accepted cash against new company printed voucher it would weaken her case for eviction

Sir

none of the principles of estoppel, waiver, limitation will come to the new company's rescue

you must be aware that a company is a separate legal juristic entity

the old and the new companies have different and independent identities and personalities

even though the name may be the same, but the ROC filings clearly would indicate 2 separate companies having their respective independent legal identities

so transfer of the assets, including tenancy rights, of the old company to the new company, will clearly fall under the realm of 'subletting' which is prohibited by the rent law, unless there was a contract to the contrary, entitling the tenant to sublet the tenanted premises without consent of landlord

even though the landlady may have written the letter demanding increase of rent and accepted revised rent for 2 years - that in no way amounts to estoppel or waiver or acquiescence - because in the first place she was not aware, rather not informed about the change in constitution, which tantamount to subletting

you must also appreciate the doctrine of 'lifting of the corporate veil' applicable in case of companies

Law is fair and equitable. It is based on common sense and logic

if every tenant company would be permitted to transfer its assets to a new company having the same incidents as that of the old company, then this would clearly be prejudicial to the landlord, who would be deprived of the tenancy premium, every time the tenant company changes its constitution/character and emerges as a new company

This is my honest opinion on your query

however i will do research to find some citation which touches the subject matter

1. It would be illegal on her part to return the mount received as enhanced rent for the period of two prior to this action.

It is also illegal on the part of the company to suppress the fact of new tenancy to the landlady and continue to pay the enhanced rate of rent, if the original tenancy was terminated upon the new one.

2. There is no much issue on the part of the company once the landlady accepted the tenancy whether renewed or new one.