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

1971 Supreme(Mad) 453

P.S.KAILASAM
R. Raja Konar – Appellant
Versus
Andal Ammal – Respondent


Advocates:
M. U. Krishnan, for Petitioners; K. Sarvebhauman and T. R. Mani, for Respondent.

JUDGMENT :- This petition has been filed by the tenants against an order of the District Judge Madurai, passed in C. R. P. 23 of 1970. The contention that is raised in this court is that the orders passed by the courts below were based on a compromise and not on a finding that the tenants have committed a breach as required under Section 10 (2) clauses (i) to (vii) and therefore the order of eviction is not executable. I find on facts that this submission is not borne out. Before the Rent Controller, the landlady contended that the tenants were guilty of wilful default in payment of rent, that the tenants have subleased the premises, that the tenants had denied the title of the landlady and that the landlady required the building bona fide for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction. It is unnecessary to consider the other grounds except the requirement by the landlady of the building bona fide for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The trial court in paragraph 8 of its order found that the requirement by the landlady is bona fide and allowed the petition, granting the tenant three months' time for vacating the premises. The appeal was preferred





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