<?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>1986 (4) TMI 366 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301430</link>
    <description>Protection from eviction under section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was available where the tenant complied with the deposit requirement under section 15, and the proviso barring a second benefit applied only to a prior benefit obtained under that same sub-section. A benefit earlier enjoyed under section 13(2) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 was not treated as the same statutory benefit, and the saving provision in section 57(2) preserved the earlier proceeding without converting that benefit into one under the 1958 Act. The earlier protection therefore did not disentitle the tenants from claiming protection on the present deposit, and the appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2022 17:54:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=674991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (4) TMI 366 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301430</link>
      <description>Protection from eviction under section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was available where the tenant complied with the deposit requirement under section 15, and the proviso barring a second benefit applied only to a prior benefit obtained under that same sub-section. A benefit earlier enjoyed under section 13(2) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 was not treated as the same statutory benefit, and the saving provision in section 57(2) preserved the earlier proceeding without converting that benefit into one under the 1958 Act. The earlier protection therefore did not disentitle the tenants from claiming protection on the present deposit, and the appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301430</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>