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

1990 Supreme(Mad) 1119

THANIKKACHALAM
K. K. Subramania Sah – Appellant
Versus
A. Sampath – Respondent


ORDER

Thanikkachalam, J.

1. The landlord is the petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondent herein is the tenant in respect of the petition premises situate at No.29, East Koovjam River Road, Chintadripet, Madras-2. The petition premises is residential one and the monthly rent is Rs. 17. According to the landlord the petition premises is aged more than 70 years and it is in a dilapidated condition. The engineer who inspected the premises advised the landlord to carry out extensive repairs. Hence he filed a petition for eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 336 of 1980 on the ground of requiring the petitioner premises for repair. Again on engineer's advice the landlord withdrew the eviction petition H.R.C.O.P. N0. 336 of 1980 and filed a fresh petition H.R.C.O.P. No. 4058 of 1980 on the ground of demolition and reconstruction as contemplated under Section 14(1)(b)of the Act. The landlord issued a notice on 4.9.1980 requesting the tenant to deliver vacant possession of the premises for demolition and reconstruction. The tenant sent a reply den









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