https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303725 A building initially outside the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 because it had not completed ten years could come within the Act if that period expired during pending litigation. The Court applied the principle that material subsequent events may be noticed to grant effective relief, and held that an amendment based on such events does not necessarily introduce a new cause of action. Once the ten-year exclusion ended during the proceedings, the tenant became entitled to invoke statutory protection and to receive the opportunity contemplated by Sections 20, 39 and 40 to deposit the dues required for relief. en-us Thu, 05 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Aug 2022 17:48:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303725 A building initially outside the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 because it had not completed ten years could come within the Act if that period expired during pending litigation. The Court applied the principle that material subsequent events may be noticed to grant effective relief, and held that an amendment based on such events does not necessarily introduce a new cause of action. Once the ten-year exclusion ended during the proceedings, the tenant became entitled to invoke statutory protection and to receive the opportunity contemplated by Sections 20, 39 and 40 to deposit the dues required for relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303725