<?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>2005 (10) TMI 567 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193811</link>
    <description>Bona fide need under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is judged on the date of the eviction petition, and later litigation developments do not negate a genuine requirement unless they completely eclipse it. On the materials, the landlords proved a genuine need to use the premises for business through their sons, and the concurrent findings upholding that need were not shown to be perverse. A tenant-company seeking protection based on occupation said to predate 1 April 1940 must prove continuity and identity with the earlier tenant entity. The company failed to show that the incorporated entity was the same as the earlier partnership, so statutory protection was denied and eviction was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2017 15:44:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485961" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 567 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193811</link>
      <description>Bona fide need under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is judged on the date of the eviction petition, and later litigation developments do not negate a genuine requirement unless they completely eclipse it. On the materials, the landlords proved a genuine need to use the premises for business through their sons, and the concurrent findings upholding that need were not shown to be perverse. A tenant-company seeking protection based on occupation said to predate 1 April 1940 must prove continuity and identity with the earlier tenant entity. The company failed to show that the incorporated entity was the same as the earlier partnership, so statutory protection was denied and eviction was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>