https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157681 Parliament's exclusive power over the regulation of house accommodation in cantonment areas was construed broadly to include letting, control of rents, termination of tenancies and eviction. The Court held that civilian occupation in a cantonment area did not narrow that constitutional entry, and the reference to control of rents confirmed its width. Because the subject fell within List I, the State's general legislative power over landlord-tenant relations yielded to Parliament's competence under Article 246. The extension of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act to the cantonment area was therefore upheld, and the competence challenge failed. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157681 Parliament's exclusive power over the regulation of house accommodation in cantonment areas was construed broadly to include letting, control of rents, termination of tenancies and eviction. The Court held that civilian occupation in a cantonment area did not narrow that constitutional entry, and the reference to control of rents confirmed its width. Because the subject fell within List I, the State's general legislative power over landlord-tenant relations yielded to Parliament's competence under Article 246. The extension of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act to the cantonment area was therefore upheld, and the competence challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157681