9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9UD(1) followed by a demand under section 269UD(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for delivery of possession. Subsequently, the apex court set aside that judgment and remitted the case for disposal afresh. While so doing, the apex court has in paragraph 11 of the judgment reported in Adair Dutt and Co. India Private Limited v. Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department [1996] 222 ITR 438, noticed the contention that had been advanced by counsel before it, that though the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, excludes Government buildings from its purview, such exclusion is confined only to buildings owned by the State Government because of the definition contained in the Tamil Nadu Act for the word "Government", as meanin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealing with eviction, would prevail in respect of the premises owned by the Central Government. The two Acts examined in that case were the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59 of 1958). The court held that where both the Acts are special enactments, the purpose, policy and the legislative intent as conveyed by the language employed therein should be examined to determine which one will prevail. The court held after considering the contents of the two enactments that the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, have to be construed as overriding the provisions contained in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59 of 1958), in sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order in respect of that building was made under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as a consequence of which order the building vests in the Union of India, the State law governing eviction will cease to apply to this building. An order made under section 269UD and other provisions of the Income-tax Act does not always have the effect of depriving a tenant of his tenancy rights. As pointed out by the apex court in the case of C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 that would depend upon the terms of the agreement to sell. If the agreement does not contemplate vacant possession being given to the buyer, termination of the lease cannot be said to be a part of the agreed terms. In this case, the agreement to sell specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
