DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS LIMITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. S PARAMJITSINGH:BHARAT BHUSHAN
LAWS(SC)-1990-10-66
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: JAMMU & KASHMIR)
Decided on October 09,1990

DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED,BANK OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
S.PARAMJITSINGH,BHARAT BHUSHAN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

D C BHATIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1991-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
BRITISH PHYSICAL LABORATORIES INDIA LIMITED BANGALORE VS. B M SHAMA RAODEAD [LAWS(KAR)-1992-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA SAWHNEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1992-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
SARASWAT CO OP BANK LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2006-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
VASU DEV SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
KONKADI PADMANABHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2015-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
D C BHATIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1994-10-3] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Thommen, J. - (1.)Civil Appeal No. 4043 of 1987. The question which arises in this appeal is as regards the validity of clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The challenge against the clause on the ground of its alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution was rejected by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. The High Court following its earlier decision in the J and K Bank Ltd. v. State of J and K, AIR 1987 J and K 18 upheld the validity of the clause.
(2.)The impugned provision, as it stood at the relevant time, reads:
"1(3) Nothwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), nothing in this Act shall apply to-

(i) **********

(ii) Omitted

(iii) any tenancy in respect of any house or shop where the income of the tenant, whether accruing within or outside the State, exceeds rupees 40,000 per annum;

Explanation:the word 'income' means 'net income'. "

(3.)The appellant, the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Limited, is the tenant of the building in question. Its claim for the protection of the Act was disallowed by the courts below on the ground that clause (iii) of subsection (3) of Section 1, read with the Explanation, was attracted in respect of the appellant.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.