Landlord and Tenant-Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949--Construction of section 16 (1) (k)-Whether Central Rent Control Board bas the power to order compensation under section 16 (1) (k) if it has not ordered grant of new tenancy Whether making of Closure Order deprives the tenant of his right to continue his tenancy-Quantum of compensation-Court will not interfere with Board's award unless it is assessed on wrong principle. The facts appear sufficiently in the judgment.
Case summary
Held (16-5-56):
Where the Rent Control Board makes an ejectment order in favour of a landlord against a tenant under section 16(1)(k) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949, the power to order compensation to be paid to the tenant is not dependent upon there being provision in the order for the grant of a new tenancy in the premises when reconstructed.
Where such compensation has been competently awarded, the Court will not interfere as regards quantum unless it is satisfied that the amount of compensation was assessed by the Board upon a wrong principle.
The mere fact that a closure order had been served upon the landlord without reference to the tenant was not necessarily a bar to compensation.
Appeal dismissed.
Counsel:
Madan for appellants.
Malik, A.H., for respondents.
