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

2002 Supreme(Mad) 191

V.BAKTHAVATSALU
P. Rayen – Appellant
Versus
Seyed Ali Fathima – Respondent


Advocates:
P.Peppin Fernando, for Petitioner.
V.Lakshminarayanan, for Respondent.

ORDER: The tenant who lost before the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent filed R.C.O.P. for eviction under Secs.10(2)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Act 18 of 1960.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petition mentioned building belongs to the petitioner. The respondent is the tenant on monthly rent of Rs.500. The respondent paid rent upto the end of December, 1990 and thereafter, he has wilfully defaulted to pay the rent inspite of repeated demands. The respondent is in arrears of rent from January, 1991 to 1992 for seventeen months to the tune of Rs.8,500. Further, the petition mentioned building is required for immediate purpose of demolition and to erect a new building on the site. The building is an old one. It requires immediate demolition. Besides, the petitioner wants to argument the income by putting up a new building. The petitioner undertake that the work of demolishing of the building will be commenced not later than one month an shall be completed before the expiry of three months from the date she recovers the possession of the entire building. Therefore, this petition is filed directing the respondent to vacat












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