Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 12 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 12 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
Kavasji Pestonji Dalal vs Rustomji Sorabji Jamadar on 6 April, 1948
12.1 The above observations appear to have been made without ascertaining the fact whether requisite assent under Section 107(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 which corresponded to Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India was given or not. If such assent was obtained, then the question of redundancy cannot arise. It appears from the decision of the Bombay High Court in Kavasji Pestonji Dalai v. Rustomji Sorabji Jamadar, reported in 50 BLR 450 that Bombay Rent Act (Act No. 57 of 1947) received assent of the Governor General on January 19, 1948 and was brought into force on February 13, 1948 which fact is mentioned while referring to the contentions of Mr. Seervai. There is no dispute about the fact that the assent of the Governor General to the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act was received on 13th January, 1948 and that such assent was first published in the Bombay Government Gazette in 19th January, 1948. In view of such assent, the Bombay Rent Act would prevail in the State under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India.
Shantaben Harilal Brahmbhatt vs Hasmukhlal Maneklal Chokshi on 12 January, 2001
The Shantaben's case (supra) was decided in context of Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act and the observations made thereunder were as regards notice which was to be issued under that provision and have no relevance to institution of any suit on the grounds mentioned under Section 13(1) of the Bombay Rent Act which do not lay down requirement of issuance of any notice before institution of such suit.