https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199663 A rent-control notification extending tenant protection to Doiwala was held to survive repeal and reenactment under the general savings provision, because it was neither expressly displaced nor inconsistent with the later law. The court treated the 31 March 1949 notification as continuing in force under section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. As the area remained under rent-control protection, eviction could not be sustained on a bare notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act without the required statutory permission. The tenancy protection therefore continued, and the eviction suit failed on the impugned notice. en-us Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Mar 2018 10:21:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199663 A rent-control notification extending tenant protection to Doiwala was held to survive repeal and reenactment under the general savings provision, because it was neither expressly displaced nor inconsistent with the later law. The court treated the 31 March 1949 notification as continuing in force under section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. As the area remained under rent-control protection, eviction could not be sustained on a bare notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act without the required statutory permission. The tenancy protection therefore continued, and the eviction suit failed on the impugned notice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199663