Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.99 seconds)Section 18 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
The Amending Act, 1901
Ravula Subba Rao And Another vs The Commissioner Of ... on 9 May, 1956
Our own court has generally taken the view that
ascertainment of legislative intent is a basic rule of
statutory construction and that a rule of construction
should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of
a legislation and that though a construction, according to
plain language, should ordinarily be adopted, such a
construction should not be adopted where it leads to
anomalies, injustices or absurdities, vide K.P. Varghese v.
I.T.O. [1981] 4 S.C.C.173, State Bank of Travsncore v. Mohd.
M.Khan [1981] 4 S.C.C.82, Som Prakash Rathi v. Union of
India [1981] 1 S.C.C. 449, Ravula Subba Rao v. C.I.T. [1956]
S.C.R. 577, Govindlal v. Market Committee [1976] 1 S.C.R.
482 & Babaji Kondaji v. Nasik Merchants Coop. Bank [1984] 2
S.C.C. 50.
Babaji Kondaji Garad Etc vs The Nasik Merchants Co-Operative Bank ... on 31 October, 1983
Our own court has generally taken the view that
ascertainment of legislative intent is a basic rule of
statutory construction and that a rule of construction
should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of
a legislation and that though a construction, according to
plain language, should ordinarily be adopted, such a
construction should not be adopted where it leads to
anomalies, injustices or absurdities, vide K.P. Varghese v.
I.T.O. [1981] 4 S.C.C.173, State Bank of Travsncore v. Mohd.
M.Khan [1981] 4 S.C.C.82, Som Prakash Rathi v. Union of
India [1981] 1 S.C.C. 449, Ravula Subba Rao v. C.I.T. [1956]
S.C.R. 577, Govindlal v. Market Committee [1976] 1 S.C.R.
482 & Babaji Kondaji v. Nasik Merchants Coop. Bank [1984] 2
S.C.C. 50.
Jagan Nath vs Abdul Aziz And Ors. on 28 April, 1972
The writing relating to the consent and the writing
relation to the knowledge (notice) may be by different
documents or they may telescope into the same document.
Where, as in the present case, the agreement or the letter
of the sub-tenancy in respect of the demised premises is
attested by the landlord himself, there can be no question
that the landlord has given his previous consent and that he
has notice in writing of the sub-tenancy in respect of the
particular premises. The requirements of sec. 17 and 18 both
as regards to his consent and the notice to him are
satisfied. There is no magical form in which the consent is
to be given nor any charmed form in which the notice is to
be sent. As we said, the essence of the matter is that the
consent to the sub-tenancy and the notice of the sub-tenancy
in respect of the premises must be evidenced by writing
signed by the landlord and the tenant or the sub-tenant. In
this view of the matter, the appellant in the present case
is clearly entitled to the protection of secs. 17 and 18 of
the Delhi Rent Control Act and he cannot, therefore, be
evicted in execution of the decree obtained by Balbir Nath
Mathur against Om Prakash & Company. We do not consider it
necessary to embark into a discussion of the two cases cited
before us Jagan Nath v. Abdul Aziz A.I.R. 1973 Delhi p.9 and
Murari Ial v. Abdul Ghafar I.L.R. 1974 1 Delhi 45.