<?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>1990 (3) TMI 376 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281445</link>
    <description>Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was construed as conferring protected tenant status on a licensee in actual occupation of a flat on 1 February 1973, by legal fiction and with overriding effect. On that basis, the occupant was treated as within the special rent legislation, and the society could not bypass that protection by invoking Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The court reasoned that the forum&#039;s jurisdiction depended on whether the occupant was a trespasser or otherwise outside Rent Act protection, and held that eviction could not be pursued under the general co-operative society provision where statutory rent protection applied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:23:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575772" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 376 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281445</link>
      <description>Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was construed as conferring protected tenant status on a licensee in actual occupation of a flat on 1 February 1973, by legal fiction and with overriding effect. On that basis, the occupant was treated as within the special rent legislation, and the society could not bypass that protection by invoking Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The court reasoned that the forum&#039;s jurisdiction depended on whether the occupant was a trespasser or otherwise outside Rent Act protection, and held that eviction could not be pursued under the general co-operative society provision where statutory rent protection applied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>