MANI SUBRAT JAIN vs RAJA RAM VOHRA

The Supreme Court held that under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, an advocate is considered a 'tenant' and enjoys protection against eviction, even after a compromise decree for possession has been passed. The Court emphasized that rent control legislation must be interpreted liberally to protect tenants, and the definition of 'tenant' includes those in possession despite the termination of tenancy. Consequently, the execution proceedings for eviction were dismissed as the appellant remained a tenant under Section 13(1) of the Act.