<?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>1977 (8) TMI 165 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169730</link>
    <description>The Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 was held to provide an additional eviction remedy and not to impliedly displace the Government&#039;s ordinary civil suit for eviction, because repeal by implication is not readily inferred and the statutory scheme was compatible with both remedies. The Act&#039;s classification based on public premises was upheld as having a rational relation to the public interest in speedy recovery. However, section 5 was found unconstitutional because it vested unguided discretion in the Collector to choose the harsher summary procedure against some occupants while others faced the ordinary civil process, creating arbitrary discrimination under Article 14.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 May 2015 10:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383642" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (8) TMI 165 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169730</link>
      <description>The Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 was held to provide an additional eviction remedy and not to impliedly displace the Government&#039;s ordinary civil suit for eviction, because repeal by implication is not readily inferred and the statutory scheme was compatible with both remedies. The Act&#039;s classification based on public premises was upheld as having a rational relation to the public interest in speedy recovery. However, section 5 was found unconstitutional because it vested unguided discretion in the Collector to choose the harsher summary procedure against some occupants while others faced the ordinary civil process, creating arbitrary discrimination under Article 14.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>