https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304040 A beneficial rent control law was held to bar execution of a pre-existing decree for possession once the Act applied to the area, because Section 21(1) and the broad definition of tenant were construed liberally to protect continued possession. The Court reasoned that, absent express preservation of earlier decrees or a clear contrary implication, the statutory immunity from eviction extends even to a final decree already obtained by the landlord. The decree-holder therefore could not execute the decree against the tenant, and the tenant received rent control protection. en-us Wed, 12 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Sep 2022 12:31:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304040 A beneficial rent control law was held to bar execution of a pre-existing decree for possession once the Act applied to the area, because Section 21(1) and the broad definition of tenant were construed liberally to protect continued possession. The Court reasoned that, absent express preservation of earlier decrees or a clear contrary implication, the statutory immunity from eviction extends even to a final decree already obtained by the landlord. The decree-holder therefore could not execute the decree against the tenant, and the tenant received rent control protection. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304040