<?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>2002 (4) TMI 896 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159852</link>
    <description>Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was construed narrowly: the benefit of the special eviction procedure was confined to the member expressly described in the provision, and the phrase &quot;who dies while in service or within five years of retirement&quot; was held to qualify that member&#039;s death. The Court also treated the statutory classification created by the 1979 amendment as permissible and not violative of Article 14. On that construction, major daughters could not invoke Section 29B after the retired serviceman&#039;s death, and the eviction petition under Section 13(1)(ff) was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 11:35:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 896 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159852</link>
      <description>Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was construed narrowly: the benefit of the special eviction procedure was confined to the member expressly described in the provision, and the phrase &quot;who dies while in service or within five years of retirement&quot; was held to qualify that member&#039;s death. The Court also treated the statutory classification created by the 1979 amendment as permissible and not violative of Article 14. On that construction, major daughters could not invoke Section 29B after the retired serviceman&#039;s death, and the eviction petition under Section 13(1)(ff) was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159852</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>