<?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>2002 (5) TMI 891 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305139</link>
    <description>Property forming part of a religious trust or endowment could fall within the exemption notification for buildings owned by public religious and charitable trusts, so the Rent Control Act&#039;s applicability required proper examination and could not be rejected summarily. On the title dispute, the statutory enquiry under Section 10(2)(vii) was confined to whether the tenants&#039; denial of title was bona fide; it did not permit final adjudication of ownership in rent proceedings. Because the tenants challenged the respondent&#039;s and his predecessor&#039;s title and the dispute was bona fide, the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to conclusively decide title, and the matter had to be left to the civil court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2022 18:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696230" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 891 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305139</link>
      <description>Property forming part of a religious trust or endowment could fall within the exemption notification for buildings owned by public religious and charitable trusts, so the Rent Control Act&#039;s applicability required proper examination and could not be rejected summarily. On the title dispute, the statutory enquiry under Section 10(2)(vii) was confined to whether the tenants&#039; denial of title was bona fide; it did not permit final adjudication of ownership in rent proceedings. Because the tenants challenged the respondent&#039;s and his predecessor&#039;s title and the dispute was bona fide, the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to conclusively decide title, and the matter had to be left to the civil court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>