https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173491 The majority opinion in the case upheld the validity of the order for recovery of possession against the appellant even after the dissolution of the original tenant company. It interpreted Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, to allow proceedings against the assignee alone. The court rejected arguments regarding consent for assignment under the lease agreement and affirmed the Rent Controller's jurisdiction to make an eviction order in the absence of the original tenant. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to vacate the premises within a month, emphasizing the legislative intent of the Act. en-us Mon, 19 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:24:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173491 The majority opinion in the case upheld the validity of the order for recovery of possession against the appellant even after the dissolution of the original tenant company. It interpreted Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, to allow proceedings against the assignee alone. The court rejected arguments regarding consent for assignment under the lease agreement and affirmed the Rent Controller's jurisdiction to make an eviction order in the absence of the original tenant. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to vacate the premises within a month, emphasizing the legislative intent of the Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173491