Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.35 seconds)Section 2 in The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
Section 25 in Provincial Small Causes Courts Act,1887 [Entire Act]
Ratan Lal Shinghal vs Smt. Murti Devi on 21 August, 1979
In support of his contention, Mr. Sanghi, relied
upon Rattan Lal Shinghal v. Smt. Murti Devi.(1) The same
contention was raised by him in that case also and a
Division Bench of this Court accepted the contention and
held that Act 13 of 1972 was prospective and applied only to
buildings brought into being de novo after the Act came into
force. In that case there is no discussion except this bald
observation.
Section 29 in The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
The Karnataka High Court Act, 1961
Section 24 in The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Shri. Ram Saroop Rai vs Smt. Lilavati on 7 May, 1980
This Court in a subsequent case Ram Saroop Rai
v. Lilavati(2) held to the contrary. It is on this account
that the present appeals were referred to a larger Bench.
There is no ambiguity in the language of sub-section (2) of
section 2 and in the absence of any ambiguity there is no
question of taking any external aid for the interpretation
of the sub-section. In plain words the sub-section
contemplates that the Act shall not apply to a building
during a period of ten years from the date on which its
construction is completed. It nowhere says that the building
should have been constructed after the enforcement of the
Act and to interpret it in the way the learned counsel for
the appellant seeks to interpret it, we would be adding
words to the sub-section, which is not permissible.
Primarily the language employed is the determining factor of
the intention of the legislature. The first and primary rule
of construction is that the intention of the legislature
must be found in the words used by the legislature itself.
The question of interpretation arises only when the language
is ambiguous and, therefore, capable of two interpretations.
In the present case the language of sub-section (2) of
section 2 of the Act is explicit and unambiguous and it is
not capable of two interpretations.