TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Clause 13-A retroactive, applies to pending appeals. Remitted to High Court for fresh consideration.</h1> <h3>Dilip Versus Mohd. Azizul Haq & Anr.</h3> The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, holding that clause 13-A has retroactive effect and applies to pending appeals. The matter was ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 to the premises.2. Validity of amendments to the Order and their retrospective effect.3. Interpretation of 'house' and 'premises' under the Order.4. Applicability of clause 13-A to pending appeals.Summary:1. Applicability of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 to the premises:The respondent filed a civil suit claiming the premises was open land and not subject to the Order. The appellant contended that the land was part of a residential house and thus fell under the Order. The Civil Judge ruled in favor of the respondent, but the appellant appealed, arguing that the premises was a house as defined in clause 13 of the Order.2. Validity of amendments to the Order and their retrospective effect:The Order was amended on 27th June 1989 and 26th October 1989, expanding the definition of 'premises' and introducing clause 13-A, which required landlord permission from the Controller for eviction. The High Court initially declared these amendments ultra vires, but the Supreme Court remanded the matter for reconsideration. The High Court later ruled that the amendments were not retrospective and thus not applicable to the case.3. Interpretation of 'house' and 'premises' under the Order:The appellant argued that the term 'house' should include land appurtenant to the building. The High Court did not address this interpretation adequately, focusing instead on the timing of the amendments.4. Applicability of clause 13-A to pending appeals:The Supreme Court emphasized that an appeal is a continuation of the suit, and thus clause 13-A should apply to pending appeals. The High Court's view that no proceedings were pending against the tenant on the amendment date was incorrect. The Supreme Court cited precedents to support that an appeal reopens the entire case, making the new provisions applicable.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, holding that clause 13-A has retroactive effect and applies to pending appeals. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made.
TaxTMI 
