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

2002 Supreme(SC) 154

P.VENKATARAMA REDDI, R.C.LAHOTI
Amaiyappa Transport – Appellant
Versus
N. S. Rajulu – Respondent


ORDER

Two applications, seeking eviction of the tenant for the purpose of demolition and re-construction, as contemplated by clause-(b) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter the Act for short) were disposed of by a common order by the controller, directing the tenants to be evicted. The tenants preferred appeals before the appellate authority which were allowed and the order of the controller was set aside. The landlord preferred revision petitions before the High Court which have been allowed and in supersession of the order of the appellate authority, the High Court has restored the order of eviction passed by the rent controller.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the tenants have filed these two appeals by special leave.

3. The suit premises are a part of a larger property situated in the city of Madurai. It appears that the property of the landlord admeasures around 2688 sq.ft., out of which the two appellants before us are occupying approximately 380 sq.ft. area each as tenant. There was a third tenant, namely, Raja Ram, also in possession of a similar area who was also ordered to be evict









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