<?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>1985 (9) TMI 352 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199583</link>
    <description>The SC upheld the amended rent-control exemption for newly constructed buildings for ten years, holding that the classification between pre-commencement and post-commencement buildings had a rational basis and a direct nexus with the object of encouraging new construction and easing housing scarcity; the measure was therefore not arbitrary or violative of Article 14. The Court also held that the amendment was prospective in operation, did not create any vested right in tenants to insist on continuation of the earlier exemption, and could validly remove any defect in the prior provision within legislative competence. The constitutional challenge was rejected and the amended Section 1(3) was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 10:56:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (9) TMI 352 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199583</link>
      <description>The SC upheld the amended rent-control exemption for newly constructed buildings for ten years, holding that the classification between pre-commencement and post-commencement buildings had a rational basis and a direct nexus with the object of encouraging new construction and easing housing scarcity; the measure was therefore not arbitrary or violative of Article 14. The Court also held that the amendment was prospective in operation, did not create any vested right in tenants to insist on continuation of the earlier exemption, and could validly remove any defect in the prior provision within legislative competence. The constitutional challenge was rejected and the amended Section 1(3) was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199583</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>