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

1979 Supreme(Mad) 266

T.RAMAPRASADA RAO
S. A. M. Jameema Beevi and another – Appellant
Versus
Easwarlal Patel and others – Respondent


Advocates:
F. A. Rasheed, for Petitioners
V. Narayanaswami, for Respondents.

JUDGMENT.— These four civil revision petitions arise out of a common order made by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in an application filed by the petitioners as landladies for evicting the four tenants, each of whom is a respondent in each of these civil revision petitions, on the ground that the petitioners required the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority went into the question whether the petitioners satisfied all the prescriptions laid down in section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), and the concurrent finding of fact is that the petitioners have already established and manifested their bona fide intention to demolish the building and put up a construction as soon as they obtain delivery of possession of the demised premises. This concurrent finding of fact has not been challenged before me by learned counsel for the respondents. But the question whether the petition filed by the power-of-attorney agent of the landladies was maintainable in law was the main subject which was discussed by both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Whils
















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