P.R.GOKULAKRISHNAN
Ehasan Bivi – Appellant
Versus
Nagalakshmi Ammal – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.