https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280653 The court dismissed the landlord's appeal in an eviction suit under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The High Court ruled in favor of the tenant, stating that eviction could not be ordered as the sub-tenancy was established before the Act's enforcement in Chandigarh. The landlord's arguments regarding the validity of the sub-lease without consent and the impact of the termination notice on the sub-lease were rejected. The court emphasized the sub-tenant's rights under the Transfer of Property Act and upheld protection for tenants against unreasonable eviction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. en-us Fri, 06 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 May 2019 15:29:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280653 The court dismissed the landlord's appeal in an eviction suit under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The High Court ruled in favor of the tenant, stating that eviction could not be ordered as the sub-tenancy was established before the Act's enforcement in Chandigarh. The landlord's arguments regarding the validity of the sub-lease without consent and the impact of the termination notice on the sub-lease were rejected. The court emphasized the sub-tenant's rights under the Transfer of Property Act and upheld protection for tenants against unreasonable eviction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280653