<?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>2010 (8) TMI 935 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173059</link>
    <description>Admitted agreed rent existing at the commencement of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is treated as deemed rent for applying the monetary exclusion in Section 2(3)(e)(i), and an Explanation cannot be used to widen that exclusion beyond the main text. The repeal-and-savings provision preserves pending proceedings under the 1999 Act where the Act applies, and where the agreed rent had already been admitted, no separate fixation of standard rent arose. On that basis, premises carrying an agreed monthly rent of Rs. 4,000 were not outside the Act, the Small Causes Court&#039;s jurisdiction was not displaced, and the eviction challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 935 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173059</link>
      <description>Admitted agreed rent existing at the commencement of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is treated as deemed rent for applying the monetary exclusion in Section 2(3)(e)(i), and an Explanation cannot be used to widen that exclusion beyond the main text. The repeal-and-savings provision preserves pending proceedings under the 1999 Act where the Act applies, and where the agreed rent had already been admitted, no separate fixation of standard rent arose. On that basis, premises carrying an agreed monthly rent of Rs. 4,000 were not outside the Act, the Small Causes Court&#039;s jurisdiction was not displaced, and the eviction challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>