https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188319 A tenancy created after a provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act could not defeat the authorised officer's power to take possession after confirmation of attachment. Rule 5(3) protected only a tenant already in possession before the provisional attachment, enabling rent to be paid to the Directorate instead of possession being taken. Where the lease deed was executed after the attachment order, and the alleged oral tenancy was unsupported in law because the lease was compulsorily registrable, no enforceable tenancy rights arose against the attachment process. The post-attachment tenancy was therefore ineffective, and Rule 5(3) did not apply. en-us Mon, 19 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Nov 2016 16:24:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188319 A tenancy created after a provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act could not defeat the authorised officer's power to take possession after confirmation of attachment. Rule 5(3) protected only a tenant already in possession before the provisional attachment, enabling rent to be paid to the Directorate instead of possession being taken. Where the lease deed was executed after the attachment order, and the alleged oral tenancy was unsupported in law because the lease was compulsorily registrable, no enforceable tenancy rights arose against the attachment process. The post-attachment tenancy was therefore ineffective, and Rule 5(3) did not apply. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 19 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188319