Hari Mittal vs B.M. Sikka on 2 December, 1985
Laxmi Devi, (1971) 73 Pun LR 86; chattar Sain v. Jamboo Parshad, 1965 Cur LJ 143 (Punj); and Faqir Chand v. Smt. Ram Kali, (1982) 2 Ren CR 404: AIR 1983 Punj & Har 167.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)Documents citing
Faqir Chand vs Ram Kali on 12 July, 1982
M.P. Bansal And Anr. vs The District Employment Officer, ... on 16 March, 1985
In view of two Division Bench authorities in Chattar Sain's case and Faqir Chand's case (supra) referred to above, it is obvious that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Janak Kundra's case (ILR (1981) 2 Punj & Har 90) (supra) and a few other cases detailed above, that a residential building shall continue to be so in the absence of an order of the Rent Controller under S. 11 of the Act irrespective (sic) that it has been let out for non-residential purpose, cannot prevail. The provisions of the Act apply to a building which has been let out. A building or part thereof which has been let out is to be treated as a unit for the purpose of the Act. If such a unit is let out and used solely for the purpose of business or trade, it will be non-residential building. A building or a part thereof initially constructed for residential purpose shall be non-residential building in terms of S. 2(d) of the Act if the same is let out and used solely for business or trade.
Harjit Singh vs Daya Ram Sat Narain on 11 December, 2002
We are of the opinion, with respect, that Chattar Sain's case (supra) and Faquir Chand v. Ram Kali's case (supra) do not lay down the correct law and we, therefore, overrule them.":
Kewal Ram And Ors. vs Krishan Kumar And Anr. on 5 October, 2007
20. We are of the opinion, with respect that Chatter Sain's case (supra) and Faqir Chand v. Ram Kali's case (supra) do not lay down the correct law and we, therefore, overrule them.
1