<?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>1984 (10) TMI 246 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199580</link>
    <description>Section 14A(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act gives a special right to immediate possession only where a landlord is compelled to vacate government-allotted accommodation because he owns residential premises in Delhi. Continued occupation of the allotted accommodation on the filing date is not required, but the remedy is unavailable once the landlord has already shifted into other owned premises available for residence. The suitability test applicable under Section 14(1)(e) does not govern Section 14A(1); if other owned premises are not reasonably suitable, the landlord must proceed under Section 14(1)(e) instead. The stated conclusion was that the eviction remedy under Section 14A(1) was unavailable on the facts described.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 10:43:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (10) TMI 246 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199580</link>
      <description>Section 14A(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act gives a special right to immediate possession only where a landlord is compelled to vacate government-allotted accommodation because he owns residential premises in Delhi. Continued occupation of the allotted accommodation on the filing date is not required, but the remedy is unavailable once the landlord has already shifted into other owned premises available for residence. The suitability test applicable under Section 14(1)(e) does not govern Section 14A(1); if other owned premises are not reasonably suitable, the landlord must proceed under Section 14(1)(e) instead. The stated conclusion was that the eviction remedy under Section 14A(1) was unavailable on the facts described.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199580</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>