<?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>1981 (1) TMI 279 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184138</link>
    <description>Premises licensed for film production, together with machinery and fixtures, were held to fall within the rent-control definition of premises given on licence for business, so the licensee came within the statutory deeming provision and was treated as a tenant. The statute&#039;s exclusive forum for disputes between licensor and licensee concerning possession and related questions also meant that the parties could not contract out of that mandate by an arbitration clause. Because the dispute concerned possession of protected premises under a welfare rent-control regime, arbitration was held inoperative and the special statutory court remained the only competent forum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:22:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (1) TMI 279 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184138</link>
      <description>Premises licensed for film production, together with machinery and fixtures, were held to fall within the rent-control definition of premises given on licence for business, so the licensee came within the statutory deeming provision and was treated as a tenant. The statute&#039;s exclusive forum for disputes between licensor and licensee concerning possession and related questions also meant that the parties could not contract out of that mandate by an arbitration clause. Because the dispute concerned possession of protected premises under a welfare rent-control regime, arbitration was held inoperative and the special statutory court remained the only competent forum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>