<?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>1986 (4) TMI 346 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183208</link>
    <description>Section 30(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was found to create an arbitrary classification by denying statutory protection only to residential premises let above the prescribed rent ceiling while continuing protection for non-residential premises regardless of rent. The Court held that no rational basis was shown for this differential treatment, and the justification based on protection of weaker sections did not explain the exclusion of higher-rent residential tenants. As the rent ceiling had become unreal with rising rents, the classification lacked a reasonable nexus with the object of the Act and was struck down as violative of Article 14.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2016 16:21:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (4) TMI 346 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183208</link>
      <description>Section 30(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was found to create an arbitrary classification by denying statutory protection only to residential premises let above the prescribed rent ceiling while continuing protection for non-residential premises regardless of rent. The Court held that no rational basis was shown for this differential treatment, and the justification based on protection of weaker sections did not explain the exclusion of higher-rent residential tenants. As the rent ceiling had become unreal with rising rents, the classification lacked a reasonable nexus with the object of the Act and was struck down as violative of Article 14.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>