Section 17 (4) (b) clarify the personal need for landowner Ounce when the landlord filed for the evacuation request, there was another shop vacant in the same premises and he gave the same controller to the same tenant. I intended to dismiss the request because the landlord had failed. The question raised by the landlord was to prove his shop's clear need to prove that it was his profession to choose a shop for occupancy and that the tenant could not dictate its validity. But the landlord had to prove its ingredients. Section 17 (4) (b) of the Cantonment Rent Regression Act, 1963, was available for Choice Housing where all shops were occupied, but in the event of a shop vacancy, the law required the landlord to prove or at least state it. There was no empty shop. Such important evidence or even the landlord's record was deemed appropriate to require it. The High Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the rent controller.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
