Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
Section 3 in The Karnataka Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Karnataka Prohibition Act, 1961
The Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967
Mani Subrat Jain vs Raja Ram Vohra on 19 November, 1979
4. It was held by this Court in Mani Subrat Jain v Raja Ram Vohra 1980 (2) SCR 141 dealing with Section 2(1) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act which defines 'tenant' more or less in similar term as the present Act that in view of such a definition of the 'tenant' in Rent Control Act the fact that by the time the Act came into force a decree or any other process extinguished the tenancy under the general law of real property does not terminate the status of a tenant so long as he continues in possession and his possession cannot be terminated except as provided for in the Rent Control Act. It is well-settled legal principle that Rent Control legislations being beneficial to the tenant have to be given a liberal interpretation. While ordinarily substantive rights should not be held to be taken away except by express provision, or clear implication in the case of Rent Control Act, it being a beneficial legislation the provision which confers immunity to the tenant against eviction by the landlord though prospective in form operates to take away the right vested in the landlord by a decree of a court which has become final, unless there is express provision or clear implication to the contrary.
Section 2 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Konchada Ramamurthy Subudhi & Anr vs Gopinath Naik on 7 December, 1967
6. Reliance was placed on behalf of the respondent on the decision of this Court in Konchada Ramamurty Subudhi and Anr. v Gopinath Naik 1968 (2) SCR 559. There the landlord had filed a suit for eviction of the respondent/tenant from the appellant's/landlord's house. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. In appeal, a compromise was entered into between the parties and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. The compromise provided for the respondent's continuation of possession of the house for five years, but it enabled the appellant to execute the decree by evicting the respondent if the respondent failed to pay rent for any three consecutive months. When the appellant sought to evict the respondent, the latter claimed protection for eviction as a tenant under the Orissa House Rent Control Act. 1958, it was held that the facts that the appellant had filed a suit for eviction of the respondent and the compromise decree enabled him to execute the decree by evicting the respondent, showed the intention of the parties, which was the decisive test, was not to enter into the relationship of a landlord and tenant, in spite of the fact that the word 'rent' was used in the compromise. The respondent in this appeal cannot draw support from the said decision-there on the construction of the compromise decree the Court came to the conclusion about the intention of the parties taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant appeal we are concerned with the finding out of the intention of the legislature in the view of the purpose of the legislation.
1