https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168267 Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was upheld as valid because the exemption power was treated as conditional legislation that withdrew statutory protection rather than as an impermissible delegation, and the Article 14 challenge failed absent proof of arbitrary use. Reconstruction may amount to "construction" under an exemption notification, but only where the rebuilding is substantial enough to be construction in substance; partial alteration or repair is insufficient. Section 13(1) did not bar a civil court from passing a decree for ejectment after expiry of the exemption period, leaving execution issues to the executing court. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:25:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168267 Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was upheld as valid because the exemption power was treated as conditional legislation that withdrew statutory protection rather than as an impermissible delegation, and the Article 14 challenge failed absent proof of arbitrary use. Reconstruction may amount to "construction" under an exemption notification, but only where the rebuilding is substantial enough to be construction in substance; partial alteration or repair is insufficient. Section 13(1) did not bar a civil court from passing a decree for ejectment after expiry of the exemption period, leaving execution issues to the executing court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168267