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

1978 Supreme(Mad) 605

T.RAMAPRASADA RAO
R. J. Mehta & Co. , represented by its Partners – Appellant
Versus
Prootam Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
K.P. Unnikrishnan, for Petitioners.
S.M. Amjad Nainar, for Respondent.

ORDER. — The unsuccessful landlord before the Appellate Authority in proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, is the petitioner. The petitioner is a partnership com-pany in which there are three partners, Mawaharlal Mehta, Rasiklal Mehta, and Bhismachandra Mehta. It is admitted that this partnership, owns premises No. 79/A and B, Sambudoss Street, Madras and they are in occupation of shop No. 12 in the said premises. The petitioner has also another business in the same shop No. 12 in the ground-floor the name and style of which is Bombay Hardware Syndicate. In this partnership the father of the three partners already referred to is also a partner. The claim of the petitioner partnership, which we would call the A partnership, sought for possession of shop No.l3,which is adjacent to shop No. 12 in the occupation of the tenant-respondent on the ground that the partnership business of the Bombay Hardware Syndicate (hereinafter referred to as the B partnership) was expanding and that therefore additional space was required by the B partnership. The A partnership therefore filed the present application under section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buil















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