<?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>1977 (10) TMI 118 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198155</link>
    <description>For eviction on personal necessity under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the landlord&#039;s need was established on admitted pleadings that the sweetmeat business was his own, and a belated contrary factual contention could not be entertained in second appeal. A tenant&#039;s occupation of another shop did not defeat eviction because the statute required alternative non-residential accommodation to be the landlord&#039;s own and in his occupation, not merely premises occupied by him. Mesne profits could not run from termination of the contractual tenancy; a tenant continuing in possession remains a tenant until an eviction decree, so damages accrue only from the date of that decree.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (10) TMI 118 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198155</link>
      <description>For eviction on personal necessity under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the landlord&#039;s need was established on admitted pleadings that the sweetmeat business was his own, and a belated contrary factual contention could not be entertained in second appeal. A tenant&#039;s occupation of another shop did not defeat eviction because the statute required alternative non-residential accommodation to be the landlord&#039;s own and in his occupation, not merely premises occupied by him. Mesne profits could not run from termination of the contractual tenancy; a tenant continuing in possession remains a tenant until an eviction decree, so damages accrue only from the date of that decree.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>