<?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>1988 (9) TMI 354 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187328</link>
    <description>Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act permits limited tenancy only on a genuine, full and frank disclosure of all material facts to the Rent Controller. A sanction obtained after occupants were already in possession, or by suppressing the true arrangement, is vitiated and cannot support execution. Delay in challenging such a sanction does not cure fraud on the statute or bar resistance to execution. Acceptance of rights under a void later arrangement also does not amount to an implied surrender under Section 111(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. The earlier tenancy therefore remains unaffected where the supposed limited tenancy is legally ineffective.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:28:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445195" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (9) TMI 354 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187328</link>
      <description>Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act permits limited tenancy only on a genuine, full and frank disclosure of all material facts to the Rent Controller. A sanction obtained after occupants were already in possession, or by suppressing the true arrangement, is vitiated and cannot support execution. Delay in challenging such a sanction does not cure fraud on the statute or bar resistance to execution. Acceptance of rights under a void later arrangement also does not amount to an implied surrender under Section 111(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. The earlier tenancy therefore remains unaffected where the supposed limited tenancy is legally ineffective.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>