REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAM PARSHAD HALWAI Appellant

V/S

MUKHTIAR CHAND Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GILLMORE V. SHOOTER [REFERRED]
MOON V. DURDEN [REFERRED]
WESTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY V. WINDSOR [REFERRED]
SMITHIES V. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OPERATIVE PLASTURERS [REFERRED]
COHEN V. HALL [REFERRED]
THISTELTON V. FREWER [REFERRED]
COLONEL HIS HIGHNESS RAJA SIR HARINDER SINGH BRAR BANS BAHADUR V. THE STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
PT. RAM PARKASH V. SHRIMATI SAVITRI DEVI [REFERRED]
UNITED PROVINCES V. MT. ATIGA BEGUM [REFERRED]
BEADLING V. GOLL [REFERRED]
HENSHALL V. PORTER [REFERRED]
PEOPLES BANK OF NORTHERN INDIA LTD. V. WAHID BUX [REFERRED]
HARI RAM V. MANGOO RAM [REFERRED]
LACHMESHWAR PRASAD V. KESHAWAR LAL [REFERRED]
AMAR NATH V. NATHOO RAM [REFERRED]
MOHD. AMIR KHAN V. M. MOHD. KHALIL [REFERRED]
KORAH PUNNEN V. PARAMESWARA KURUP VASUDEVA [REFERRED]
KARTAR SINGH V. HASSANAND [REFERRED]
SHAMRAO V PARULEKAR STATE OF HYDERABAD VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THANA BOMBAY:DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THANA BOMBAY [REFERRED]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. MANOHAR SINGH PRATAP SINGH [REFERRED]
RAM KARAIA VS. SIMLA BANKING INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED]
B A WOODMAN VS. REGINA RAJAN [REFERRED]
C MOOTHALIONDAM CHETTY VS. GVENKATESAM CHETTY [REFERRED]
DELHI COTTON AND GENERAL MILLS CO VS. INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER [REFERRED]
KESHORAM PODDAR VS. NUNDO LAL MULLICK [REFERRED]
THELEPURATH MADHAVAKURUP VS. K. MUHAMMAD SUKRI SAHIB [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The identical question of law involved in the marginally noted petitions is whether retrospective effect is to be given to the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956, so as to make it applicable to the pending actions. The amending Act came into force on 24th September, 1956, and its Section 2 in addition to certain other changes in the other sub-clauses substituted the following in place of sub-clause (iii) of Section 13(3) (a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act No. III of 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) :-

(2.) The sub-clause (iii) of Section 13(3) (a) prior to the amendment reads :-

(3.) The effect of the amendment is that while previously a landlord, if he required the building for re-erection or replacement, could apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, after the amendment the landlord can apply to the Controller for possession of the building only if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAM PARSHAD HALWAI Vs. MUKHTIAR CHAND

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address