<?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>1990 (4) TMI 289 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185564</link>
    <description>A composite lease of land and a substantial structure may fall within the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 if the parties intended the land and structure to be let and enjoyed together as one tenancy. The definition of &quot;building&quot; in section 2(2) is broad enough to include a hut or other structure let with appurtenant land. The decisive inquiry is not the label of the lease or the supposed dominant purpose alone, but the parties&#039; intention as shown by the lease terms and surrounding circumstances. On that analysis, a premises comprising land with a material kaichalai was treated as a building and brought within rent control.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:50:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438710" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (4) TMI 289 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185564</link>
      <description>A composite lease of land and a substantial structure may fall within the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 if the parties intended the land and structure to be let and enjoyed together as one tenancy. The definition of &quot;building&quot; in section 2(2) is broad enough to include a hut or other structure let with appurtenant land. The decisive inquiry is not the label of the lease or the supposed dominant purpose alone, but the parties&#039; intention as shown by the lease terms and surrounding circumstances. On that analysis, a premises comprising land with a material kaichalai was treated as a building and brought within rent control.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>