<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1986 (2) TMI 253 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78846</link>
    <description>A subtenant receives protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 where the landlord&#039;s previous consent to subletting and notice of the subtenancy are shown by written material clearly referable to the specific premises. The Act does not require any special form of consent or notice; it is enough that the writings evidence the landlord&#039;s assent and knowledge of the particular subtenancy. On the facts discussed, the lease documents, including the landlord&#039;s attestation and a signed letter on behalf of the tenant, satisfied these requirements. The subtenant was therefore protected and could not be evicted in execution of a decree obtained only against the principal tenant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jan 2018 11:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 253 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78846</link>
      <description>A subtenant receives protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 where the landlord&#039;s previous consent to subletting and notice of the subtenancy are shown by written material clearly referable to the specific premises. The Act does not require any special form of consent or notice; it is enough that the writings evidence the landlord&#039;s assent and knowledge of the particular subtenancy. On the facts discussed, the lease documents, including the landlord&#039;s attestation and a signed letter on behalf of the tenant, satisfied these requirements. The subtenant was therefore protected and could not be evicted in execution of a decree obtained only against the principal tenant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>