<?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>1977 (4) TMI 174 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181326</link>
    <description>A co-owner heir who receives rent and represents the estate may maintain eviction proceedings as landlord, because a person entitled to receive rent falls within the statutory landlord concept under rent control law. The special immediate-recovery remedy for government servants is, however, a one-time statutory right: where possession of one dwelling house has already been recovered on that ground, the entitlement is exhausted and cannot be invoked again against another tenant under the same landlord. On that footing, the landlord&#039;s general capacity to sue remained intact, but the second eviction under the special provision was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:59:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=423689" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (4) TMI 174 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181326</link>
      <description>A co-owner heir who receives rent and represents the estate may maintain eviction proceedings as landlord, because a person entitled to receive rent falls within the statutory landlord concept under rent control law. The special immediate-recovery remedy for government servants is, however, a one-time statutory right: where possession of one dwelling house has already been recovered on that ground, the entitlement is exhausted and cannot be invoked again against another tenant under the same landlord. On that footing, the landlord&#039;s general capacity to sue remained intact, but the second eviction under the special provision was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>