M.FAKKIR MOHAMMED
Kulsumbai Mulla Jeewajee – Appellant
Versus
Madras Marine Private Limited – Respondent
M. Fakkir Mohammed, J.
1. C.R.P. No. 2039 of 1982 has been filed by the landlady and C.R.P. No. 371 of 1982 has been filed by the tenant against the orders of the appellate authorities in different appeals filed by the landlady and tenant as against the common order passed by the Rent Controller in H. R. C. No. 2541 of 1979.
2. The landlady, who is the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2039 of 1982 and respondent in C. R P. No. 371 of 1982 filed the eviction petition on three grounds; viz., wilful default in the payment of rent under Section 10(2) (i), acts of waste to the building under Section 10(2) (iii) and requirement of the premises for the landlady's partnership business order Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
3. The learned Rent Controller gave finding on the first two grounds against the landlady, but found the third ground, viz., the requirement of the building for the landlady's partnership business, in favour of the landlady and ultimately passed an order of eviction. As against the order of eviction, the tenant filed H R. A. No. 410 of 1981 on the filed of the VI Judge, Co
6. Lingambhotla Subbayya v. The Subordinate Judge
7. Mahalakshmi Metal Industries v. Suseela Devi (1982)2 M.L.J. 333.
9. Danmull v. Syed Ali (1969) 1 M.L.J. 184 I.L.R. (1969) 2 MaJ 731; 81 L.W. 432 : A.I.R. 1969 Mod
1. Ramaswamy Pathar v. Thiagaraja Chettiar (1982) 95 L.W. 444.
5. G. K. Jose and others v. Ramathal (1979) 1 M.L.J. 372 : 92 L.W. 315.
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.