<?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>1964 (2) TMI 75 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128138</link>
    <description>Section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Area Tenancy Act, 1955 was held to apply to pending eviction proceedings and appeals, because section 2 extended the Act to tenancies created before or after commencement and showed an intention to protect pre-existing rights. The protection in section 5 was construed as covering permanent structures already built within five years of the tenancy contract, and the statutory bar operated against eviction itself, not merely against new suits. A pending appeal was treated as a continuation of the suit, so section 5(1)(a) governed the appellate proceedings. The tenants therefore received statutory protection and the appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 May 2014 12:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (2) TMI 75 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128138</link>
      <description>Section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Area Tenancy Act, 1955 was held to apply to pending eviction proceedings and appeals, because section 2 extended the Act to tenancies created before or after commencement and showed an intention to protect pre-existing rights. The protection in section 5 was construed as covering permanent structures already built within five years of the tenancy contract, and the statutory bar operated against eviction itself, not merely against new suits. A pending appeal was treated as a continuation of the suit, so section 5(1)(a) governed the appellate proceedings. The tenants therefore received statutory protection and the appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>