<?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>2008 (12) TMI 808 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294209</link>
    <description>Section 29 exemption under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was treated as a benefit available to eligible buildings, not as an automatic bar to fair-rent proceedings. The landlord did not establish dedication of property or funds for public charitable purposes, any trust obligation, or other legal preconditions for exemption, and the exemption could be waived by the beneficiary. The fair-rent fixation was also upheld because the authorities relied on the tenant&#039;s own engineering evidence, made a reasonable estimate of depreciation, and adopted a reasoned market value on comparable material; no material irregularity or illegality was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2021 14:48:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=639998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 808 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294209</link>
      <description>Section 29 exemption under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was treated as a benefit available to eligible buildings, not as an automatic bar to fair-rent proceedings. The landlord did not establish dedication of property or funds for public charitable purposes, any trust obligation, or other legal preconditions for exemption, and the exemption could be waived by the beneficiary. The fair-rent fixation was also upheld because the authorities relied on the tenant&#039;s own engineering evidence, made a reasonable estimate of depreciation, and adopted a reasoned market value on comparable material; no material irregularity or illegality was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>