SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 390

D.P.MOHAPATRA, SHIVARAJ V.PATIL
Shaw Wallace And Company LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Govindas Purushothamdas – Respondent


JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted.

2. Whether the revisional order dated 24th December, 1999 passed by the High Court of Madras in C.R.P.No.2317 of 1996 suffers from any serious illegality which warrants interference by this Court is the question for determination in this case. M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., the tenant in occupation of the premises, has filed this appeal assailing the aforementioned order of the High Court.

3. The proceeding was initiated on the application filed by the landlords - Shri Govindas Purushothamdas and Shri Girdhari Govindas, respondents herein, for fixation of fair rent of the premises under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The controversy in the present proceeding relates to inclusion of the area of 1752 sq.ft. (approximately) described as platform and henpen as a part of the building. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority excluded the said area and assessed the fair rent on the basis of plinth area of 4850 Sq.ft. The fair rent was calculated as Rs.22403/-per month. In the revision petition filed by the landlord under Section 25 of the Act, the High Cou

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top