https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287607 The court affirmed that a new tenancy does not arise when a tenant is restored possession of a newly erected building, maintaining the original lease terms. The tenant's right to re-occupy the premises is protected, and any rent increase must follow legal procedures. Regarding the period of limitation for the tenant's application, the court held that it falls under a three-year timeframe from when the right to apply accrues, not the six-month period for the landlord's execution application. The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the tenant's right to re-enter and clarifying the process for seeking fair rent. en-us Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Apr 2020 14:47:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287607 The court affirmed that a new tenancy does not arise when a tenant is restored possession of a newly erected building, maintaining the original lease terms. The tenant's right to re-occupy the premises is protected, and any rent increase must follow legal procedures. Regarding the period of limitation for the tenant's application, the court held that it falls under a three-year timeframe from when the right to apply accrues, not the six-month period for the landlord's execution application. The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the tenant's right to re-enter and clarifying the process for seeking fair rent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287607