S.NAINAR SUNDARAM
K. J. Sivalingam – Appellant
Versus
S. Guruswamy – Respondent
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.
1. The petitioner in both these revisions is one and the same. The petitioner is a landlord within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent in each of the revisions is the tenant within the meaning of the Act. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant-respondent in C.R. P. No. 3620 of 1981 on two grounds, namely that he required the building in question for his own use and occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act and on the ground of bona fide requirement for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant-respondent in C.R.P. No. 3621 of 1981 putting forth the ground under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The tenants contested the petitions for eviction. The Controller countenanced the case of the landlord and ordered eviction against the tenants. The tenants appealed and the appellate authority has chosen to reverse the orders of the Controller, allowed the appeals and has dismissed the petitions for eviction. Hence, these two revisions by the landlord. Mr. S. Nav
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.