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

1980 Supreme(Mad) 356

P.R.GOKULAKRISHNAN
Ehasan Bivi – Appellant
Versus
Nagalakshmi Ammal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

P. R. Gokulahrishnan, J.

1. The legal representatives of the tenant are the petitioners herein. The eviction was sought for in respect of three shops which are situate at No. 45-B, Hanumarkoil Road, Kumbakonam. The daily rent for each shop is Rs. 4. The eviction petition was filed by one Nagalakshmi Ammal. The eviction was sought on three grounds namely: (1) wilful default; (ii) demolition of the buildings and for reconstructing the same; and (iii) the tenants caused damages to the buildings by putting them to a different use from the one for which they were rented out. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found that there was no default, much less wilful default on the part of the tenants. They ordered eviction on the ground that the landlord requires the buildings for demolition and reconstruction and also on the ground that the tenants have damaged the buildings. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the merits of the case elaborately since Mr. B. Rajagopalan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is not able to make any headway to dislodge the concurrent findings given by the two authorities below on merits. I am satisfied from the evidence on r















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