<?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>1982 (4) TMI 288 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183974</link>
    <description>Premises may fall within the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 not only when formally owned by the Central Government, but also where the Government has valid leasehold or equivalent possessory rights. A lease evidenced through correspondence, sanction, possession, rent receipts and conduct can be sufficient where a formal deed is not indispensable, and non-compliance with constitutional contract formalities does not render the arrangement void for all collateral purposes. The Estate Officer&#039;s jurisdiction rests on these jurisdictional facts, and once established they cannot be collaterally challenged by occupants. On the facts, the Government&#039;s lawful possessory basis was upheld and the eviction proceedings were within jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (4) TMI 288 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183974</link>
      <description>Premises may fall within the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 not only when formally owned by the Central Government, but also where the Government has valid leasehold or equivalent possessory rights. A lease evidenced through correspondence, sanction, possession, rent receipts and conduct can be sufficient where a formal deed is not indispensable, and non-compliance with constitutional contract formalities does not render the arrangement void for all collateral purposes. The Estate Officer&#039;s jurisdiction rests on these jurisdictional facts, and once established they cannot be collaterally challenged by occupants. On the facts, the Government&#039;s lawful possessory basis was upheld and the eviction proceedings were within jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183974</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>