lawyers in Supreme Court India http://supremecourtindia.in/supreme-court-of-the-united-states-edward-peruta/. We have now to trace the relevant changes in the best law firms in Supreme Court India made from time to time and see whether the landlord was entitled to eject Abdul Gaffur notwithstanding the Act as amended from time to time. On remand, the Subordinate Judge, Seventh Court, Alipore rejected the plea of the landlord that the appellant Gaffur could not be regarded as a thika tenant inter alia on the ground that he had sold his interest by a registered sale deed dated April 12, 1949 to one Subasini.
That being the paramount object of the legislature it is hardly likely that it would make any discrimination between the State and the citizen in the matter of the application of the Act. Before the Subordinate Judge, a point was taken that after the coming into force of the Act of 1949, the Rent Controller alone had jurisdiction in respect of ejectment suits as the defendant appellant was a thika tenant. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the plea on the ground that the defendant-appellant had not erected the structures on the land and was not a successor-in-interest of the tenant but only a transferee.
In view of the decision in Supdt. 1); the Warranties were qualified by matters which had been fairly disclosed in the disclosure letter (clause 7. 14 and 16 because the appointments would be arbitrary and capricious. The landlord went up in appeal once more to the High Court. Chatterjee that if the executive Government is held to have power to make appointments and lay down conditions of service without making rules top advocates in Supreme Court of India that behalf under the proviso to Art. An intention to bring about such a discrimination against the latter class of tenants cannot be attributed to the legislature whose avowed- object was to do away in the interest of social and economic justice landlordism in the State.
The learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court found themselves unable to accept this argument and held that the only power vested top advocates in Supreme Court India civil courts in respect of ejectment suits against 173 thika tenants like the present one was to be found in ss. In the result, they dismissed the appeal. On a consideration of the provisions of the Act and the Ordinance, the Subordinate Judge held that the appellant, Gaffur, was not liable to ejectment in the absence of any grounds therefor in the notice to quit in accordance with S.
He also observed that S. This is especially so because if such a discrimination were to be brought about through a construction suggested by the State it would result top advocates in Supreme Court of India an anomaly in the sense that whereas occupancy tenants of lands owned by citizens would have the benefit of such a beneficent legislation occupancy tenants of lands owned and held by the State would not get such benefit. 4 of the Act would be applicable. Abdul Gaffur preferred a Second Appeal to the High Court and this was heard and disposed of by a single Judge of that court on July 21, 1954, long after the Thika Tenancy Ordinance of 1952 and the Amending Act of 1953 had come into force.
If the State of Rajasthan had considered the case of the petitioner along with the other eligible candidates before appointments to the selection posts there would be no breach of the provisions of Arts. On this occasion, the main plank of the argument on behalf of the landlord was that with the omission of S. 309, there will be a violation of Arts. 28 and 29 of the original Act and by their omission from the statute “suits for eviction became infructuous before civil courts”.
Each of the sellers severally warranted to the buyer on a proportionate basis best law firms in Supreme Court of India terms of the Warranties (clause 7. 14 and 16 of the Constitution because everyone who was eligible in view of the conditions of service and was entitled to consideration was actually considered before promotion to those selection posts was actually made. Clause 7 dealt with warranties and indemnities. The learned Judge held that at the time when the appeal of the defendant was disposed of by the Subordinate Judge, the rights of the parties were governed by the Thika Tenancy Act of 1949 and the definition of a thika tenant in that Act was not such as to afford any protection to the appellant.
and where a Warranty was qualified by an expression such as “so far as the Sellers are aware” that referred to the actual knowledge of the sellers, who confirmed that they had made due and careful enquiry of the Company’s compliance manager, IT Director and HR Director (clause 7. 29 civil courts became unable to remit ejectment suits to the controller with the result that the Act as finally amended could not apply to pre Act suits and thika tenants could get no relief under the Act.
3 of the Act as he was a thika tenant within the meaning of the Act as it was finally amended.