<?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>1970 (3) TMI 176 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296894</link>
    <description>In rent control proceedings, an eviction decree cannot be validly passed on compromise unless the court is satisfied that a statutory ground for eviction is proved. A compromise cannot confer jurisdiction where the statute bars recovery of possession without such satisfaction. Because the court did not apply its mind to the alleged subletting and acted only on the compromise, the decree was without jurisdiction, a nullity, and incapable of execution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:34:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652298" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (3) TMI 176 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296894</link>
      <description>In rent control proceedings, an eviction decree cannot be validly passed on compromise unless the court is satisfied that a statutory ground for eviction is proved. A compromise cannot confer jurisdiction where the statute bars recovery of possession without such satisfaction. Because the court did not apply its mind to the alleged subletting and acted only on the compromise, the decree was without jurisdiction, a nullity, and incapable of execution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296894</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>