SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Del) 88

ARUN KUMAR, M.C.JAIN
D. C. BHATIA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
H.N.CHAUDHARY, H.N.SALVE, Mina Chaudhary, RAJIV SHARMA, Sat Pal

M. C. JAIN

( 1 ) THIS bunch of writ petitions mentioned in the schedule annexed to this judgment (Not printed--Ed.) raises a common question regarding the constitutional validity of Section 3 (c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

( 2 ) FOR appreciating the controversy raised in these writ petitions, it would be appropriate that the history of rent control legislation is taken into account. Before enacting the rent control laws, the relations of the landlords and the tenants were governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. That was the general law applicable to landlors and tenants but on account of scarcity of accommodation i. e. shortage of housing accommodation. Rent control legislation came into being. So far as Delhi is concerned, under rule 21 of the Defence of India Rules, New Delhi House Rent Control Order, 1939 was issued. Its application was extended to Municipality of New Delhi and to the notified area of Civil Station, Delhi, Rule 81 (2) (bb) empowered the Central Government to provide by order.

"for regulating the letting and sub-letting in any area of residential accommodation, whether furnished or unfurnished and whether with or without board, and in p





























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top