https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173217 The Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 did not apply to a building constructed in 1958, so the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction and the landlord could pursue eviction in Civil Court. The Supreme Court held that waiver requires a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right, and it could not be inferred where the landlord acted under a mistake of fact about the Act's applicability. It also ruled that estoppel or res judicata cannot confer jurisdiction where the rent control law does not apply. The High Court judgment was set aside, the landlord's decree was restored, and the tenant was given time to vacate. en-us Tue, 10 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:45:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173217 The Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 did not apply to a building constructed in 1958, so the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction and the landlord could pursue eviction in Civil Court. The Supreme Court held that waiver requires a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right, and it could not be inferred where the landlord acted under a mistake of fact about the Act's applicability. It also ruled that estoppel or res judicata cannot confer jurisdiction where the rent control law does not apply. The High Court judgment was set aside, the landlord's decree was restored, and the tenant was given time to vacate. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173217