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: Retroactive application of amended notice requirement in landlord-tenant disputes</h1> <h3>Zohrabi Versus Arjuna And Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court held that the amended Section 28, requiring the landholder to give notice to the tenant within six months of each default, applied ... - Issues:1. Applicability of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950.2. Interpretation of the amended Section 28 requiring the landholder to give notice to the tenant within a period of six months of each default.3. Retroactive application of the amendment to the proviso of Section 28(1).Analysis:1. The case involved a proceeding for ejectment under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, with the main issue being the applicability of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act. The proviso stated that it would not apply to any tenant whose tenancy is terminated for non-payment of rent if the tenant had failed for three years to pay rent within the specified period. The proviso was subsequently amended in 1960 to include a requirement for the landholder to give intimation to the tenant of the default within six months of each default.2. The appellant, the landowner, issued a notice terminating the tenancy on the ground of non-payment of rent after the proviso was amended. The tenants challenged the eviction proceedings, arguing that the amended Section 28 requiring the landholder to give notice to the tenant within six months of each default was not applicable to their case. They contended that the right to institute the proceeding for eviction had accrued before the proviso was amended and could not be taken away by the retrospective application of the amendment.3. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's argument, citing precedents that established that a mere right to take advantage of the provisions of an Act is not an accrued right. The Court highlighted that the application for possession was made after the proviso was amended, and even the right to institute the proceeding did not appear to have accrued before the amendment. Therefore, the Court held that the amended Section 28 applied to the case, and the appellant's appeal was dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
