Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.53 seconds)Section 32 in The Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
Keraba Dattu Borachate And Ors. vs Sheshashai And Vishnu Trust on 14 August, 1990
4. The Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid Notification granting exemption to the properties belonging to the Respondent No. 2 trust from the provisions of the Act solely on the ground that no order withdrawing the protection of the Act could have been made by the State Government without complying with the rules of natural justice and without granting an opportunity of hearing to the affected party i.e. Petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decision of this court in Keraba v. Shri Sheshashahi Trust reported in 1990 Mah L J 1183. On the other hand the State Government and the 2nd Respondent trust have contended that while granting exemption under Section 4 of the Act, it is not necessary to give hearing to the tenant as no vested right is affected by the exemption certificate. It is also pointed out that Section 4 of the Act is a piece of conditional legislation and no hearing is contemplated in exercise of power conferred under a conditional legislation.
Mohinder Kumar Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 18 September, 1985
In Mohinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court observed:
Kewal Singh vs Lajwanti on 4 October, 1979
7. To the same effect are the observations of Fazal Ali, J., in Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti, :
K.C. Nambiar vs The Iv Judge Of The Court Of Small ... on 18 August, 1969
8. In the present case the Notification dated 10th August 1982 was issued under the provisions of Section 4(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Act thereby exempting the trust properties from the operation of th provisions of the Act. There was no question of taking away any vested right as the Act could not be regarded as having created any vested right in the tenants to remain in occupation of the property. The Rent Act constitutes a kind of remedial legislation which gives additional protection to the tenants but could not be regarded as creating any vested right in them. We may mention that similar view has been taken in Nambiar K.C. v. State of Madras and Sadhu Singh S. Mula Singh v. District Board, Gurdaspur reported in AIR 1960 Punjab 172.
Sadhu Singh S. Mulla Singh vs District Board, Gurdaspur And Anr. on 9 August, 1961
8. In the present case the Notification dated 10th August 1982 was issued under the provisions of Section 4(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Act thereby exempting the trust properties from the operation of th provisions of the Act. There was no question of taking away any vested right as the Act could not be regarded as having created any vested right in the tenants to remain in occupation of the property. The Rent Act constitutes a kind of remedial legislation which gives additional protection to the tenants but could not be regarded as creating any vested right in them. We may mention that similar view has been taken in Nambiar K.C. v. State of Madras and Sadhu Singh S. Mula Singh v. District Board, Gurdaspur reported in AIR 1960 Punjab 172.