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

1980 Supreme(Mad) 219

ISMAIL, RATNAM
K. Appa Rao – Appellant
Versus
Maragathammal – Respondent


Advocates:
M. Shamdoss, for Petitioner; A. Subramania Iyer, for Respondents,

Judgement

ISMAIL, C.J.:- These petitions have been filed to revise the order of the Appellate Authority functioning under Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, dated 12-3-1979; allowing the appeals filed before him by the respondents herein and dismissing the rent control petitions filed by the petitioner herein. The rent control petitions were dismissed on the ground that the denial of title of the petitioner by the tenants was bona fide. The result of that will be that the petitioner will have to file a suit for the purpose of getting the necessary relief.

2. As far as the finding that the denial of title is bona fide is concerned, we are of the opinion that there was abundant material before the

appellate authority on the basis of which it could come to the conclusion that the denial of title was bona fide.

3. However, what Mr. Shamdoss, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends is that the present is not a case to which the second proviso to Section 10 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 will apply. Section 10 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, along with its two provisos, reads as follows-

"10 (1) A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a













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