<?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>1978 (11) TMI 164 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289071</link>
    <description>The court in this case analyzed the meaning of &#039;tenant&#039; in the Delhi Rent Control Act, both before and after the 1976 amendment. It addressed the applicability of the Supreme Court decision in Damadilal v. Parashram to the old definition of &#039;tenant&#039; and interpreted clauses (ii) and (iii) of the new definition. The court concluded that the limited right of inheritance granted by the amended definition applies only to residential premises, emphasizing the retrospective nature of the amendment. Justices Anand and Jain concurred with the majority opinion, highlighting concerns about conflicting decisions and the need for legislative action to address any resulting hardships.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2020 10:57:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (11) TMI 164 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289071</link>
      <description>The court in this case analyzed the meaning of &#039;tenant&#039; in the Delhi Rent Control Act, both before and after the 1976 amendment. It addressed the applicability of the Supreme Court decision in Damadilal v. Parashram to the old definition of &#039;tenant&#039; and interpreted clauses (ii) and (iii) of the new definition. The court concluded that the limited right of inheritance granted by the amended definition applies only to residential premises, emphasizing the retrospective nature of the amendment. Justices Anand and Jain concurred with the majority opinion, highlighting concerns about conflicting decisions and the need for legislative action to address any resulting hardships.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>