Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)
Veetrag Investments And Finance ... vs Premier Brass And Metal Works Private ... on 9 October, 2002 cites

Union Bank Of India vs M/S. Mittersain Rupchand And Others on 20 March, 1995

10. The proviso enables the State Government to permit in any area the transfer of interest in the premises held on lease other than those let for business. It is not brought to my notice that the State Government has issued any notification under the proviso of Section 26 of the Rent Act, 1999. Even in that case, the notification cannot be in respect of the premises let for business. It is therefore, clear that in the absence of any contract, the tenant has no right to sublet or transfer the premises held by him whether they are for residential or non-residential purposes. The argument of Shri Samdani is to the effect that the sale of the demised premises as per the order dated 30-3-2001 is contrary to the provisions of Section 26 of the Rent Act, 1999. According to him, Court cannot permit anything to be done which violates the provisions of any Act. In other words, what the defendant could not have done otherwise legally done, cannot be got done through Court. In view of that the submission of Shri Samdani in this behalf is sound and sustainable. Therefore, the same will have to be upheld."
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next