Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
6 judgments · newest first · showing 1–6
The Bombay High Court initiated suo motu proceedings pursuant to the Supreme Court's direction in Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. to conduct a performance audit of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The Court heard the …
The Supreme Court considered appeals arising from a Delhi High Court judgment that interpreted Section 19(4) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. The central question was whether the two factors listed in that subsection – (a) availability of alternative accommodation for the …
The Delhi Rent Controller ordered the eviction of tenant Kash! Ram in October 1960 on the ground of the landlord's bona‑fide requirement. The landlord's applications for permission to execute the order under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 were dismissed in 1963, …
The appellant, Shafait Ali, appealed against an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground of the landlord's bona‑fide requirement. The principal question was whether Sections 14(1)(e) and 14A (along with 25A‑C) of the Rent Act are special provisions …
The landlord, Ratan Lal, sought to evict his tenant, Ravi Dutt Sharma, under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. He had earlier applied for permission under section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, but the application was dismissed. The tenant …
The Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) bought a building at auction and the appellant, Jain Ink Manufacturing Co., was a tenant under the previous owner. LIC served notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to terminate the tenancy, but the appellant remained in possession. LIC …
