https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193859 The Supreme Court held that statutory vesting of a hotel undertaking in the State did not authorise forcible eviction; possession must be recovered only in accordance with law, not by executive self-help or police force. It further held that deeming provisions under the acquisition statute did not extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship, so the occupants continued as tenants and could not be treated as unauthorised occupants for the purpose of Section 6A of the 1976 Act. On that basis, forcible dispossession was unlawful and restoration of possession was upheld. en-us Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:33:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193859 The Supreme Court held that statutory vesting of a hotel undertaking in the State did not authorise forcible eviction; possession must be recovered only in accordance with law, not by executive self-help or police force. It further held that deeming provisions under the acquisition statute did not extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship, so the occupants continued as tenants and could not be treated as unauthorised occupants for the purpose of Section 6A of the 1976 Act. On that basis, forcible dispossession was unlawful and restoration of possession was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193859