<?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>1988 (8) TMI 414 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168391</link>
    <description>A tenant loses statutory protection under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, where monthly rent is unpaid, the arrears exceed six months, no dispute exists about standard rent or permitted increases, and payment is not made within one month of notice under section 12(2). In that situation, the court must pass a decree for eviction. A dispute over standard rent must be raised within the prescribed time to avoid this mandatory result, and section 12(3)(b) applies only where clause (a) does not govern because it concerns regular deposits in court. The tenants therefore remained outside the protection of section 12(3)(a).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376957" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (8) TMI 414 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168391</link>
      <description>A tenant loses statutory protection under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, where monthly rent is unpaid, the arrears exceed six months, no dispute exists about standard rent or permitted increases, and payment is not made within one month of notice under section 12(2). In that situation, the court must pass a decree for eviction. A dispute over standard rent must be raised within the prescribed time to avoid this mandatory result, and section 12(3)(b) applies only where clause (a) does not govern because it concerns regular deposits in court. The tenants therefore remained outside the protection of section 12(3)(a).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>