https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286866 The phrase "for his own occupation" in Section 11(3) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 was construed broadly to cover occupation for the purpose for which the tenancy was created, including non-residential use such as running a cinema business. Reading Section 11(3) with Section 11(4) and the Act's definition of "building," the Court treated the statute as applying to both residential and non-residential tenancies. It also rejected the contention that the eviction orders were without jurisdiction or ultra vires, and held that the challenge to the Act itself was not open on the pleadings. en-us Wed, 18 Feb 1948 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Mar 2020 18:38:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286866 The phrase "for his own occupation" in Section 11(3) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 was construed broadly to cover occupation for the purpose for which the tenancy was created, including non-residential use such as running a cinema business. Reading Section 11(3) with Section 11(4) and the Act's definition of "building," the Court treated the statute as applying to both residential and non-residential tenancies. It also rejected the contention that the eviction orders were without jurisdiction or ultra vires, and held that the challenge to the Act itself was not open on the pleadings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Feb 1948 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286866