<?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>1984 (1) TMI 349 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307585</link>
    <description>Permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is valid only for genuine short-term letting where the landlord does not need the premises during the agreed period and bona fide expects to recover possession on expiry. On the facts, the landlord&#039;s suppression of a recent tenancy, incorrect statements about the alleged mother&#039;s relationship and condition, and misdescription of the son&#039;s school class went to the basis of consent and showed misrepresentation rather than a bona fide limited arrangement. Prior tenant inaction did not validate the transaction or bar later challenge. The permission was therefore not enforceable for recovery of possession.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:24:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=711628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (1) TMI 349 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307585</link>
      <description>Permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is valid only for genuine short-term letting where the landlord does not need the premises during the agreed period and bona fide expects to recover possession on expiry. On the facts, the landlord&#039;s suppression of a recent tenancy, incorrect statements about the alleged mother&#039;s relationship and condition, and misdescription of the son&#039;s school class went to the basis of consent and showed misrepresentation rather than a bona fide limited arrangement. Prior tenant inaction did not validate the transaction or bar later challenge. The permission was therefore not enforceable for recovery of possession.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307585</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>