<?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>1995 (1) TMI 402 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191153</link>
    <description>A statutory tenant of commercial premises is treated as retaining an estate or interest even after termination of the contractual tenancy, and that interest may be transferable where the governing rent law and notification do not prohibit it. On the reading adopted, the proviso to section 15 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was not confined only to contractual leases, and could extend to transfer of the premises interest together with business assets and goodwill. The attempted reliance on section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected because their conditions were not met.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=462114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 402 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191153</link>
      <description>A statutory tenant of commercial premises is treated as retaining an estate or interest even after termination of the contractual tenancy, and that interest may be transferable where the governing rent law and notification do not prohibit it. On the reading adopted, the proviso to section 15 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was not confined only to contractual leases, and could extend to transfer of the premises interest together with business assets and goodwill. The attempted reliance on section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected because their conditions were not met.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>