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

1971 Supreme(Mad) 401

RAMAPRASADA RAO
M. Pattabiraman – Appellant
Versus
Accommodation Controller, Madras – Respondent


Advocates:
G. Narayanan and K. Gopal, for Petitioner; T. Sathiadev, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for Respondents.

Judgement

ORDER:- These two writ petitions are connected. The petitioner is the owner of premises No.33, Office Venkatachala Mudali St. Triplicane, Madras. He is living in the ground floor of the premises and the first floor is in the occupation of the second respondent, who is a Government allottee. The portion in the occupation of the second respondent consists of a hall, verandah, kudam, living room, bed room etc. The petitioner with the intention of demolishing the first floor and reconstructing it has sought for permission from the Corporation of Madras to effect such alterations and ultimately obtained sanction therefor under building plan No.P.2597 of 1970 dated 28-7-1970. But, as the second respondent was an allottee of the premises through the Government, the petitioner applied to the first respondent for delivery of possession of the same and effectively asked for a release of the first floor from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. In

fact, the application was made under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act. The Accommodation Controller is said to have inspected the plan and enquired the petitioner and ultimately was of the view that the pe















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