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>High Court rules against forfeiture of tenancy rights under Narcotic Drugs Act, emphasizing tenant and landlord rights.</h1> <h3>Arvind Mehram Patel Versus Competent Authority</h3> Arvind Mehram Patel Versus Competent Authority - [1992] 196 ITR 396 Issues:- Forfeiture of properties under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.- Validity of forfeiture of tenancy rights.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Calcutta involved the case of an individual detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The Competent Authority issued a show-cause notice for forfeiture of various properties belonging to the individual, including cash, cars, a room, a flat, and a pistol. The Competent Authority later ordered the forfeiture of all these properties. The appellant did not contest the forfeiture except for the property specified at Serial No. (iv), which was a tenancy in a room. The appellant argued that his tenancy rights could not be forfeited as he had paid a pugree of Rs. 50,000, and the rights were a result of an agreement between the landlord and tenant. The appellant contended that the investigating officers obtained his statement about the pugree through coercion and that the tenancy rights could not be forfeited under the Act.The High Court analyzed the arguments presented by both the appellant and the Competent Authority. It was held that tenancy rights of a tenant cannot be forfeited under proceedings of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court emphasized that such forfeiture would not only affect the tenant but also impact the landlord's right to eject the tenant for subletting without consent. The Competent Authority was found to lack jurisdiction to violate the landlord's rights, as the landlord was not an 'affected person' under the Act. Therefore, the court concluded that the Competent Authority erred in forfeiting the tenancy rights of the appellant in the specified property.Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of forfeiture of the tenancy rights in the specified property. However, the appeal concerning the forfeiture of the remaining properties was dismissed. The judgment clarified the limitations on the Competent Authority's jurisdiction regarding the forfeiture of tenancy rights and upheld the rights of both tenants and landlords in such cases.
TaxTMI 