Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Section 13 in Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975
U.P.Bhoodan Yagna Samiti,U.P vs Braj Kishore & Ors on 9 September, 1988
13. An interesting question arose before the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Bhoodan Yajna Samiti v. Braj Kishore . Under the aforesaid Act the words "landless persons" were required to be interpreted. The contention was that the persons who admittedly have no land In the village in which the land to be allotted situated would be covered by the expression "landless persons", in spite of the fact that they may be traders and paying income-tax and may have properties in the city. After noticing the scheme of Bhoodan Yajna, the movement which Acharya Vinoba Bhave and later Jai Prakash Narain carried out, and the purpose of movement, it came to the conclusion that "landless persons" means only those landless persons whose main source of livelihood was agriculture and who were agriculturist residing in the village where the land situated and who had no land in their name at the time. It never meant that all those rich persons who are residing in the cities and have properties in their possession but who are taken landless persons as they did not have any agricultural land in their name in the Tehsil or the village where the land was situate or acquired by the Bhoodan Samiti that could be allotted in their favour. It quoted one Shloka (verse) and rejected the plain ordinary dictionary meaning given to the words "landless persons" and also held that the scheme of Bhoodan Yajna has to be looked into.
Ladly Prasad vs Ram Shah Billa And Ors. on 26 September, 1975
To the same proposition another case Ladly Prasad v. Ram Shah Billa , was also pressed into service. The aforesaid two judgments were distinguished on the ground that tenant's plea of non-admission of rent was evasive. It was further held that it would depend upon the facts of each case as to whether there is any amount admitted by the tenant to be due or not.
Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 12 January, 2005
19. The Court could lay its hand on a recent judgment of Apex Court, under the provisions of Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 1975 in the case of Manik Lal Majoomdar and Ors v. Gouranga Chandra Day and Ors. . Section 20(1)(b) of the aforesaid Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 was under consideration before the Apex Court wherein the interpretation of phrase "admitted by the tenant to be due" to enable him to prefer an appeal before an appellate authority, was involved. Section 20 of the said Act mandated the appellant to deposit or pay all arrears of rent, "admitted by the tenant to be due" and continues to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building in question until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority as the case may be. In this statutory set up, the Apex Court in para 6 of the report has observed as follows:
Ajit Kumar Nag vs General Manager (Pj), Indian Oil ... on 6 February, 2004
In our opinion, the approach of the Court in dealing with such cases should be pragmatic rather than pedantic, realistic rather than doctrinaire, functional rather than formal and practical rather than precedential" vide Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (P.J.) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia and Ors. .
Administrator Municipal Corporation, ... vs Dattatraya Dahankar And Another on 5 December, 1991
11. Now the question is whether the word 'admitted' used in Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. should be interpreted literally or principle of purposive or functional rule of interpretation should be applied for. The Apex Court in the case of Administrator. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur v. Dattatraya Dahankar , has observed as follows: