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

2003 Supreme(Mad) 730

K.GNANAPRAKASAM
Noor Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
S. Ramasamy – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr. A.J.Abdul Razak, Advocate. For the Respondent:Mr.A.K. Kumarasamy, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1.The tenant, in RCOP.No.25/1994, on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Erode, is the revision petitioner.

2.The respondent/landlord filed an application under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for eviction of the tenant, on the ground that he requires the petition premises on the ground of additional accommodation to carry on his business.

3.The case of the landlord is that the petition premises was given on lease by the vendors of the landlord to the respondent for running an automobile spare parts business on a monthly rent of Rs.400/- and the tenancy is according to the English Calendar. The landlord had purchased the building on 16.2.1989 and on intimation of the said purchase, the tenant has been paying the rent to the petitioner. The landlord is running 3 flour mills, one for chillies, one for rice and wheat etc., and another for salt. He also installed 2 pulverisers, one for pulverising sugar and another for cocoanut. The landlord also installed a lathe for repairing the machineries and has been running these businesses in the adjoining tiled portions of the petition premises. The petitioner





























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