https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184471 Section 16(5) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 distinguishes between a landlord and any other person claiming lawful occupation. The requirement of lawful occupation applies only to the latter category, not to the landlord. The seven-day proviso is directed to applications by persons in lawful occupation and cannot be read to extinguish the landlord's substantive right to seek review absent clear legislative intent. Accordingly, a landlord need not have been in actual physical possession to maintain a review application under section 16(5), and the review was maintainable. en-us Mon, 26 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jul 2016 12:32:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184471 Section 16(5) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 distinguishes between a landlord and any other person claiming lawful occupation. The requirement of lawful occupation applies only to the latter category, not to the landlord. The seven-day proviso is directed to applications by persons in lawful occupation and cannot be read to extinguish the landlord's substantive right to seek review absent clear legislative intent. Accordingly, a landlord need not have been in actual physical possession to maintain a review application under section 16(5), and the review was maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 26 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184471