https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272577 A suit for compensation for use and occupation of requisitioned immovable property was held maintainable because Rule 59-A authorised requisition and incidental possession, but did not expressly bar a civil claim for compensation or exclude civil court jurisdiction by necessary implication. The court also found the original rent unsupported by adequate material, holding that fair rental value must depend on suitability, locality, and prevailing rents rather than construction cost alone, and reduced the decretal rent accordingly. The defendant's request for set-off for repairs failed because prior notice to carry out repairs was absent and the necessity of the expenditure was not proved. en-us Thu, 29 Oct 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 May 2018 18:04:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272577 A suit for compensation for use and occupation of requisitioned immovable property was held maintainable because Rule 59-A authorised requisition and incidental possession, but did not expressly bar a civil claim for compensation or exclude civil court jurisdiction by necessary implication. The court also found the original rent unsupported by adequate material, holding that fair rental value must depend on suitability, locality, and prevailing rents rather than construction cost alone, and reduced the decretal rent accordingly. The defendant's request for set-off for repairs failed because prior notice to carry out repairs was absent and the necessity of the expenditure was not proved. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 29 Oct 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272577