<?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>1961 (4) TMI 89 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168264</link>
    <description>Section 13 of the Madras Buildings (Lease &amp; Rent Control) Act, 1949 was upheld as a valid exemption power because the Act&#039;s preamble and scheme supplied a clear policy of regulating letting, controlling rents, and preventing unreasonable eviction, so the provision was not an unguided discretion under Article 14. At the same time, an individual exemption order under that provision remained subject to judicial review under Article 226 and could be quashed if the Government relied on reasons not germane to the Act&#039;s purpose. The majority view treated the stated grounds for exemption as irrelevant to tenant protection, while the dissent considered the order within statutory power.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (4) TMI 89 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168264</link>
      <description>Section 13 of the Madras Buildings (Lease &amp; Rent Control) Act, 1949 was upheld as a valid exemption power because the Act&#039;s preamble and scheme supplied a clear policy of regulating letting, controlling rents, and preventing unreasonable eviction, so the provision was not an unguided discretion under Article 14. At the same time, an individual exemption order under that provision remained subject to judicial review under Article 226 and could be quashed if the Government relied on reasons not germane to the Act&#039;s purpose. The majority view treated the stated grounds for exemption as irrelevant to tenant protection, while the dissent considered the order within statutory power.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168264</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>