Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1992 (10) TMI 254 - SUPREME COURT
Extract:
.......we do not consider it necessary to deal with the submissions urged by Dr. Singhvi that the respondent, being an employee of the University at the time of his retirement, was not a 'specified landlord' under section 2(hh) of the Act. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed but without any orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.