https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182468 The Court held that the 1956 amendment deleting a landlord's right to seek eviction from non-residential premises was void under Article 13(2) as unconstitutional under Article 14, so it could not form part of the law later extended to Chandigarh. The Chandigarh Extension Act was read as extending the 1949 Act in its original form, not the amended text, and the statutory fiction in Section 3 was given full effect. On that basis, the landlord retained the right to seek eviction from a non-residential building on the ground of bona fide personal requirement, and the eviction challenge failed. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182468 The Court held that the 1956 amendment deleting a landlord's right to seek eviction from non-residential premises was void under Article 13(2) as unconstitutional under Article 14, so it could not form part of the law later extended to Chandigarh. The Chandigarh Extension Act was read as extending the 1949 Act in its original form, not the amended text, and the statutory fiction in Section 3 was given full effect. On that basis, the landlord retained the right to seek eviction from a non-residential building on the ground of bona fide personal requirement, and the eviction challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182468