https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187190 The Court held that the Bombay Rent Act and the Bombay Land Requisition Act operate in distinct fields and are not to be read together so as to limit the deeming vacancy under Explanation (a) to Section 6 of the Requisition Act. A transfer permitted under the Rent Act did not prevent vacancy from arising under the Requisition Act's independent statutory fiction. On the facts, the assignment of tenancy and business was treated as a colourable device to secure an unlawful transfer of tenancy rights, not a protected transfer. The requisition was therefore upheld and the fundamental-rights challenge failed. en-us Thu, 06 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:51:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187190 The Court held that the Bombay Rent Act and the Bombay Land Requisition Act operate in distinct fields and are not to be read together so as to limit the deeming vacancy under Explanation (a) to Section 6 of the Requisition Act. A transfer permitted under the Rent Act did not prevent vacancy from arising under the Requisition Act's independent statutory fiction. On the facts, the assignment of tenancy and business was treated as a colourable device to secure an unlawful transfer of tenancy rights, not a protected transfer. The requisition was therefore upheld and the fundamental-rights challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187190