<?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>1996 (7) TMI 571 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184941</link>
    <description>Damages under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 depend on a prior finding of unauthorised occupation, while authorised occupation attracts rent rather than damages. Where the issues of lawful sub-tenancy and unauthorised occupation are interdependent, a writ court exercising Articles 226 and 227 may mould relief to balance equities and prevent unfair advantage. On that basis, preserving the damages claim while remitting the occupation question for fresh consideration was treated as permissible, because the earlier refusal of damages was only technical and not a final finding that damages were unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2016 18:45:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 571 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184941</link>
      <description>Damages under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 depend on a prior finding of unauthorised occupation, while authorised occupation attracts rent rather than damages. Where the issues of lawful sub-tenancy and unauthorised occupation are interdependent, a writ court exercising Articles 226 and 227 may mould relief to balance equities and prevent unfair advantage. On that basis, preserving the damages claim while remitting the occupation question for fresh consideration was treated as permissible, because the earlier refusal of damages was only technical and not a final finding that damages were unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184941</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>