<?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>1957 (9) TMI 55 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181036</link>
    <description>A revisional order of the District Court under the rent control statute was treated as that of a subordinate court, so a further revision under Section 115 CPC was maintainable. Restoration of a destroyed cow-shed and bath-room was held not to be a mere repair: repair covers renewal or replacement of subsidiary parts, while complete restoration amounts to reconstruction outside Section 11. The cow-shed and bath-room were also treated as amenities, and their disappearance was attributed to the landlord&#039;s failure to prevent damage and restore them, amounting to withholding of amenities under Section 8. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings and declined interference in revision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2016 10:47:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422770" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (9) TMI 55 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181036</link>
      <description>A revisional order of the District Court under the rent control statute was treated as that of a subordinate court, so a further revision under Section 115 CPC was maintainable. Restoration of a destroyed cow-shed and bath-room was held not to be a mere repair: repair covers renewal or replacement of subsidiary parts, while complete restoration amounts to reconstruction outside Section 11. The cow-shed and bath-room were also treated as amenities, and their disappearance was attributed to the landlord&#039;s failure to prevent damage and restore them, amounting to withholding of amenities under Section 8. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings and declined interference in revision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>