Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.04 seconds)Section 13 in Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 [Entire Act]
Vineet Kumar vs Mangal Sain Wadhere on 5 January, 1984
In Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera the Supreme Court was concerned with Section 2(2) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which provided that nothing in the U.P. Act shall apply to a building during the period of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed. There the landlord filed a suit for eviction and for other reliefs on the ground that the period of ten years had not lapsed on the date of suit. The tenant contended that the period of ten years had lapsed and the Act would apply. The first Court held that the exemption would apply and the Act would not apply and decreed the suit. On revision, the High Court found that the building was not ten years old on the date of the suit and hence the Act would not apply, and that the tenant cannot get any protection. The High Court confirmed all the findings except about the arrears of rent and remanded the matter to the first Court for determination of arrears. The only point argued before the Supreme Court on a special leave petition was whether the premises, which was not ten years old on the date of the suit and was exempted from the operation of the U.P. Act could be governed by it if ten years expired during the pendency of the litigation. A contention was put forth that the Court had to decide the case on the basis of cause of action that had accrued prior to the filing of the suit and not on a new cause of action.
Thalai Vadivu Anandar vs Venugopala Chettiar on 4 September, 1959
(7) A doubt was expressed in the earlier pronouncements of this Court as to whether, if execution had already been levied pursuant to a decree obtained prior to the coming into force of the Act, and such execution petition was pending at the time of the coming into force of the Act, such pending proceedings could be affected - Vide Muhammad Sukri Sahib v. Madhava Kurup (1949)1 M.L.J.376 : A.I.R.1949 Mad.809 and Thalai Vadivu Anandar v. Venugopala Chettiar But the Supreme Court in the latest judgment in Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera has applied the law which came into operation during the pendency of the litigation. In the present case, I am not called upon to decide this question specifically because it does not arise on facts.
Section 30 in Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 [Entire Act]
Firms Amar Nath Basheshar Dass vs Tek Chand on 21 March, 1972
(5) The impact and the implications of the exemption cannot survive beyond the period of exemption. On grounds of equity, inconvenience and hardship, the Court is not supposed to stretch the scope of the exemption. The filing of the suit in a Civil Court during the period of exemption and the obtaining of a decree in such a suit even during or after the lapse of the period of exemption is of no consequence at all and if at the time the decree is put into execution to evict the tenant, the Act has intervened and come into force, that alone would govern. The courts are not concerned with the policy of the legislature or with the result, whether injurious or otherwise, by giving effect to the language used, nor is it the function of the Court where the meaning is clear act to give effect to it merely because it would lead to hardship. The. above rule was held to be an unexceptionable one in Firm Amar Nath v. Tek Chand
(6) The lapse of the period of exemption automatically makes the Act applicable to the building in question. If at the time when the actual eviction is sought for, the Act had become applicable to the building in question, the fact that the proceeding in which the decree was obtained, was filed during the period of exemption, is not a relevant factor because as already noted, neither the institution of the suit nor the obtaining of the decree before a civil court stands ousted by the Act, and only the eviction of the tenant stands circumscribed as per the provisions of the Act.
Pondicherry University Act, 1985
K. Muhammad Sukri Sahib vs Thelapurath Madhava Kurup And Anr. on 7 January, 1949
(7) A doubt was expressed in the earlier pronouncements of this Court as to whether, if execution had already been levied pursuant to a decree obtained prior to the coming into force of the Act, and such execution petition was pending at the time of the coming into force of the Act, such pending proceedings could be affected - Vide Muhammad Sukri Sahib v. Madhava Kurup (1949)1 M.L.J.376 : A.I.R.1949 Mad.809 and Thalai Vadivu Anandar v. Venugopala Chettiar But the Supreme Court in the latest judgment in Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera has applied the law which came into operation during the pendency of the litigation. In the present case, I am not called upon to decide this question specifically because it does not arise on facts.
Section 8 in The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Arunachalam vs Kesavan Chettiar on 21 January, 1983
Obviously the pronouncement of the Supreme Court referred to above was not rendered at the time Ratnam, J. expressed his views in the decision in Arunachalam v. Kesavan Chettiar . The pronouncements of Benches of this Court and the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court have got to be followed and applied to the facts of the present case, and I have done it while allowing this revision.