Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: punjab municipal act 1911 Court: himachal pradesh Year: 1974 Page 1 of about 1 results (0.016 seconds)

Dec 12 1974 (HC)

Surjit Singh Vs. Pritam Singh

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-12-1974

..... tatachari, jj. (as they then were). in the opinion of the division bench there was not much of difference between the provisions of the bombay act and the punjab act and so, the decision in popatlal ratansey, (air 1958 bom 1) (supra) could not be distinguished as was done in baij nath (supra). besides ..... the absence of any similar accommodation in the locality, or because of the absence of any entry in the property tax assessment register of the municipal, town or notified area committee or cantonment board, the case would be different. what is not physically possibie to achieve cannot be enforced by ..... the tenant cannot operate res judicata.43. in 1966-68 pun lr 732 the learned judges were considering a case offixation of rent under the punjab act. the tenant had filed an application for fixation of fair rent. the same was dismissed because an agreement was reached between the parties and ..... months prior to the 1st january, 1939; and (b) the rental value of such building or rented land if entered in property tax assessment register of the municipal, town or notified area committee, cantonment board, as the case may be, relating to the period mentioned in clause : (a) (provided that, notwithstanding anything ..... 12 months prior to january 1, 1939, and (b) the rental value of such building if entered in the property tax assessment register of the municipal, town or notified area committee or cantonment board, as the case may be, relating to the aforesaid period of 12 months. the fair rent .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //