Recovery possession Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 1944 LAW EDITION: 2020 Sec 13- When landlord may recover possession (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject […]
where the standard rent is fixed by the Court and the Controller respectively under the Bombay Rent Restriction Act, 1939, or the Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944, such standard rent
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 49 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bom. L VII of 1947), the Government of Bombay is pleased to make the following rules
The mutawalli or Board shall invite applications from persons desiring to take the property on lease under sub-rule (1) by publishing a notice in the surrounding vicinity, distributing leaflets, pamphlets or beating of drums and pasting the said notice on any conspicuous place like mosque or any other public place.
“বাড়ী-মালিক” অর্থ কোন ব্যক্তি যিনি আপাততঃ নিজের বা অন্য কোন ব্যক্তির পক্ষে বা অন্য কোন ব্যক্তির উপকারার্থ বা কোন ব্যক্তির ট্রাষ্টি, বা রিসিভার হিসাবে কোন বাড়ীর ভাড়া পান বা পাইবার অধিকারী হন, বা যিনি বাড়ীটি ভাড়া দেওয়া হইলে উক্তরূপ ভাড়া পাইতেন বা ভাড়া পাইবার অধিকারী হইতেন এবং Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) এ সংজ্ঞায়িত কোন আইনগত প্রতিনিধি (Legal representative) উপ-ভাড়া প্রদানকারী কোন ভাড়াটিয়া এবং বাড়ী-মালিক হইতে স্বত্ব প্রাপ্ত কোন ব্যক্তিও ইহার অন্তর্ভুক্ত হইবে;
Respondent was entitled only to such less sums than 2 s. 9 d. in the pound as had been accustomed to be paid; or, at least, that an issue ought to be directed to try the question as to such customary payments: that where the last rents of houses formerly standing on the site of the present buildings were known, but no customary payments proved, the tithe ought to be calculated according to the last known rent, and not upon the improved value; and that, where no last rents were known, no tithe ought to be paid.
The principal argument of the appellant is that the statement made by his counsel before the High Court was not binding on him, as it was made without his instructions.We hasten to add neither the client nor the court is bound by the lawyer’s statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client’s instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client. We may add that in some cases, lawyers can make decisions without consulting the client.
Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011-State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act. We, therefore, declare Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and void and of no effect.
If as on the date of filing the petition the requirement subsists and it is proved, the same would be sufficient irrespective of the time-lapse in the judicial process coming to an end.
It is a settled position of law that once tenancy is created, a tenant can be evicted only after following the due process of law, as prescribed under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. A tenant cannot be arbitrarily evicted by using the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as that would amount to stultifying the statutory rights of protection given to the tenant….