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

1992 Supreme(Mad) 628

A.R.LAKSHMANAN
R. V. Ramalingam – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Muthaliff – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:R. Muthukumaraswami, Sathish Kumar Sundar, B. Kumar, Advocates.

Judgment :-

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The respondent-landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 30 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Thiruvarur, for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in question on the ground of wilful default, act of waste and ceasing to occupy the premises in question. The said R.C.O.P. was transferred to the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Nannilam, and renumbered as R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1991. The said R.C.O.P. is pending. The petitioner-tenant filed a counter in the R.C.O.P. stating that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction as the lease is only of the site. He has also denied the claims put forward by the respondent-landlord in the R.C.O.P.

2. While matters stood thus, the landlord filed I.A. No. 36 of 1990 in R.C.O.P. No. 30 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller, Thiruvarur, for appointment of a Commissioner, under Section 18-A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the petitioner-tenant has substantially damaged the back portion of the building and is also attempting to unauthorisedly put up some construction, and in view of the attit






































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