S.R.VENKATESHA MURTHY
ARUN BALAVANT CHANDAGADKAR – Appellant
Versus
KHUTUBUDDIN SHABHAKHAN PATHAN,MAJOR – Respondent
( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions filed challenging the constitutional validity of S. 14 (6) and S. 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'act'), are consolidated for the purpose of disposal by a common order.
( 2 ) ). In W. P. No. 9499/88 the constitutional validity of S. 14 (6) of the Act is challenged on the ground that the provision is arbitrary, and has, in any event, after a long lapse of time, become unrelated to the realities of life and cannot be sustained. In W. P. No. 22249/90 the validity of S. 14 of the Act is challenged on the same ground that the determination of the fair rent in relation to a situation existing as on 1947, has by lapse of time, become arbitrary and is productive of negative income to the landlord.
( 3 ) SECTION 14 of the Act reads as follows :section 14 : Fixation of fair rent etc. :- (1) The landlord or tenant of any building, other than a building in respect of which the fair rent has been fixed either before or after the coming into operation of this Act, may make an application to the controller for fixing the fair rent of the building. (2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.