<?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>2016 (1) TMI 1508 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456664</link>
    <description>In rent control eviction proceedings, one co-owner may maintain an eviction petition in his own right unless the other co-owners object, and a tenant cannot resist eviction merely by insisting that all co-owners be joined; later impleadment of the omitted co-owner also removes that objection. A tenancy created by an attorney-holder is treated in law as an act of the principal, because an agent acting under a power of attorney acquires no personal right or interest by that act. On those principles, the landlord-tenant relationship was established with the original owner and, after his death, with his heirs, so the revisional interference was unwarranted and the eviction order was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2024 20:37:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1508 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456664</link>
      <description>In rent control eviction proceedings, one co-owner may maintain an eviction petition in his own right unless the other co-owners object, and a tenant cannot resist eviction merely by insisting that all co-owners be joined; later impleadment of the omitted co-owner also removes that objection. A tenancy created by an attorney-holder is treated in law as an act of the principal, because an agent acting under a power of attorney acquires no personal right or interest by that act. On those principles, the landlord-tenant relationship was established with the original owner and, after his death, with his heirs, so the revisional interference was unwarranted and the eviction order was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>