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

1988 Supreme(Mad) 4

M.SRINIVASAN
Arputham – Appellant
Versus
Singaravelu Nadar And Sons Represented By Partners – Respondent


ORDER

M. Srinivasan, J.

1. The revision petition is against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, who is the Appellate Authority Under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, dismissing an appeal against an order passed by the Rent Controller, Nagercoil, Under Section 11(4) of the Act.

2. On the 16th of April, 1986 the Rent Controller passed an order Under Section 11(3) of the Act directing the petitioner herein to deposit the entire arrears of rent on or before 31-5-1986. The petitioner did not make the deposit within the time granted and ultimately, an order was passed by the Rent Controller on 17-6-1986, stopping all further proceedings and directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises to the landlords on or before 31-7-1986. That order was challenged in appeal by the petitioner and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Rent Controller.

3. In this revision petition it is argued that the Rent Controller did not pass an order Under Section 11(4) of the Act in I.A. No. 15 of 1986 which was the Application filed Under Section 11 by the landlords. It is contended that the requirements of the section could









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