Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.72 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
Section 51 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Maharashtra Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1956
Section 3 in Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1941 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in Maharashtra Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Matajog Dobey vs H. C. Bhari(With Connected Appeal) on 31 October, 1955
The learned Chief Justice considered that the underlying assumption of the exemption was that the Government would not increase the rents and would not eject tenants unless it was absolutely necessary in the public interest and unless a particular building was required for a public purpose. While deciding the constitutionality of S. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Matajog Dobey's case, (S) AIR 1956 SC 44 observed that a discretionary power was not necessarily a discriminatory power and abuse of power was not to be easily assumed where the discretion was vested in the Government and not in a minor official.
Rampratap Jaidayal vs Dominion Of India on 25 June, 1952
The State Government does not consist of one individual and whatever decisions are taken by the Government they cannot be regarded exercise of discretion in the same manner as it can be exercised by the District Magistrate or a competent Officer under the Government Premises (Eviction) Act. The authorities which are more in point for deciding the question raised are Rampratap v. Dominion of India, AIR 1953 Bom 170, Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari, (S) AIR 1956 SC 44 and Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 397.
Satish Chander And Anr. vs Delhi Improvement Trust, Etc. on 5 September, 1957
Moreover, the unguided and unfettered discretion of a non-judicial authority to relegate persons similarly situated to different remedies was found to be clearly violative of the principle of equality before the law guaranteed by Article 14. Falshaw J. in Satish Chander's case. 1957-59 Pun LR 621: (AIR 1958 Punj 1) did not consider that Art. 14 could be properly invoked with regard to the Government Premises (Eviction) Act 1950 as the Allahabad Court sought to have done.