https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175861 A structure that qualified as a roofed building when it first became vacant could still be treated as a "building" for allotment under Section 16(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 even if the roof was removed before the allotment order. Because the definition of "building" is subject to context, and the structure had already fallen vacant as a building, the term could be read in its broader sense to preserve the statutory purpose. The later roofless condition, brought about by the landlord, did not defeat the District Magistrate's allotment jurisdiction. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Dec 2015 15:48:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175861 A structure that qualified as a roofed building when it first became vacant could still be treated as a "building" for allotment under Section 16(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 even if the roof was removed before the allotment order. Because the definition of "building" is subject to context, and the structure had already fallen vacant as a building, the term could be read in its broader sense to preserve the statutory purpose. The later roofless condition, brought about by the landlord, did not defeat the District Magistrate's allotment jurisdiction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175861