Rent Control - Law Dictionary Search Results
Premises
Maharashtra, AIR 1966 SC 882: (1966) 2 SCR 322. The expression 'premises' in s. 5(8) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 57 of 1947, does not include premises used for agricultural purposes,
Required bona fide
a mere desire which is the outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation, Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222.
Use of himself
of himself, recognises landlord's bona fide right to live as a family with persons of his choice, Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, ss. 21(1)(h) and 3(ff), Raghvendra P. Mudhol v. Hanamant R. Kulkarni, AIR 1986 Kant 219.
Keep your definitions linked to case research
To which s. 54 does not apply
The proviso did not apply and the matter had to be governed by the old Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, which had been repealed, Jai Narain v. Kishanchand, AIR 1969 SC 1165: (1969) 1 SCC 724:
Suits and other proceedings
and other proceedings, the words 'suits and other proceedings' in sub-s. (2) of s. 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 include appeals and revision case, Karam Singh Sobti v. Pratap Chand, AIR 1964 SC 1305: (1964)
Sufficient cause
Surinder Singh Sibia v. Vijay Kumar Sood, AIR 1992 SC 1540 (1541): (1992) 1 SCC 70. [H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, s. 14(3), Proviso 2] The expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be cons-trued too liberally, merely because the
Sub-tenant
Sub-tenant, 'sub-tenant' literally or statutorily either in the Rent Control Legislations or agri-cultural tenancies, normally, is a person in possession holding from the tenant. His right or interest
Right to sue
Rani v. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, AIR 1973 SC 2110: (1973) 1 SCC 688: (1973) 3 SCR 679. [Delhi rent Control Act, 1958, s. 14(1)(e)] (ii) The term 'right to sue' must be equated with 'cause of action', unless
Notwithstanding, the words 'notwithstanding' in clause (1) and 'subject to' in clause (3) mean that where an entry is in general terms in List II and part of that entry is in specific terms in List I, the entry in List I takes effect notwithstanding the e
effect to the retrospective introduction of the proviso in s. 3 and applying the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in cases falling within the proviso, Sunder Dass v. Ram Parkash, AIR 1977 SC 1201 (1206):
Premises let for residential purposes
Steel and Engineering Works v. Prem Deva etc., AIR 2003 SC 650 (654): (2003) 2 SCC 236. [Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, s. 14(1)(e) and Explanation 1]
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »
Try the research workspace - 7 days free