<?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>1961 (8) TMI 70 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296516</link>
    <description>A statutory rent-control scheme distinguishing premises completed before and after 24 March 1947 was upheld as based on a rational classification, reflecting changed construction costs, price rise, and the need to encourage new building activity. The procedure for fixing standard rent was also treated as consistent with natural justice where the landlord had repeated opportunities to produce documents, respond, and participate, and local inquiry and inspection were conducted after notice. The text further states that findings that the premises were newly constructed, being supported by evidence and treated as jurisdictional facts, should not be displaced in revision merely because a different inference is possible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2021 13:29:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=650640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (8) TMI 70 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296516</link>
      <description>A statutory rent-control scheme distinguishing premises completed before and after 24 March 1947 was upheld as based on a rational classification, reflecting changed construction costs, price rise, and the need to encourage new building activity. The procedure for fixing standard rent was also treated as consistent with natural justice where the landlord had repeated opportunities to produce documents, respond, and participate, and local inquiry and inspection were conducted after notice. The text further states that findings that the premises were newly constructed, being supported by evidence and treated as jurisdictional facts, should not be displaced in revision merely because a different inference is possible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296516</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>