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

1984 Supreme(Mad) 271

S.NATARAJAN
V. K. Joseph – Appellant
Versus
State of T. N. , Madras – Respondent


Advocates:
K. V. Padmanabhan for M/s. C. Jose Ukkar and P. Srinivasan, for Petitioner.

Judgement

ORDER :-A peep into a statute, a look at the Constitution and off to Court may appear to be a good enough formula for the petitioner to file a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, but not to the Court, because it will not issue rule nisi on the basis of scanty material.

2. After the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been on the statute book for nearly a quarter century, the petitioner herein, who is facing an action for eviction filed by the owner of a building for non-payment of rent, claims to have discovered a constitutional flaw in S.2(3) of the Act and a statutory contravention in S.18(1) of the Act. As stated earlier, the owner of a building in the occupation of the petitioner has filed a petition in R.C.O.P. 3069 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner's defence would appear to be that he has not committed any default in payment of rent and his occupation of the building is referable to an agreement of sale and part performance thereof.

3. Even before that case has been taken up for tria














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