SMT. NOORUNISSA BEGUM v. BRIJ KISHORE SANGH!
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Amendment Act, 2005
- Andhra State Act, 1953
- Madras C Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949
- States Reorganisation Act, 1956
- States Reorganisation Act
- Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949
- Constitution of India
- Andhra Pradesh Act
- East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 s. 13(1)
- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973
- Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882
- East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949
- Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act s. 13
Judgment
SMT. NOORUNISSA BEGUM v. BRIJ KISHORE SANGH I 251 non-application of the Act. On the other hand, Section A 26 confers power on the Government to exempt buildings or classes of buildings to which Act is applicable from all or any of the provisions of the Act. Section 26 has a non-obstante clause, which is widely worded. The Government need not, for the purposes of B exercise of power under Section 26 take any guidance or be influenced by the provisions of Section 32. [Paras 46 and 47] [291-E-G]
2.6 Though clause (a) of G.0.Ms.636 dated 29th C December, 1983 has become redundant, clause (b) of the said G.O. still applies to the building the monthly rent of which exceeds Rs.1,000/- i.e. the building monthly rent of which is between Rs.1001/- to Rs.3,500/- in the Municipal areas and Rs.1001/- to Rs.2,000/- in other areas. The aforesaid buildings whose monthly rent. exceeds Rs.1,000/- still continue to enjoy the exemption granted to them under Section 26 of the Act. The larger Bench of the High Court wrongly held that clause (b) of E the G.0.Ms.636 dated 29th December, 1983 has become a redundant in view of the amended Section 32. [Para 51] [292-G-H; 293-A-B] 0
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.