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) 40

PRABHA SRIDEVAN
Kethmul – Appellant
Versus
Husaini Begum – Respondent


Advocates:
K.Chandramouli, Senior Advocate, for A.Muthukumar, for Petitioner.
P.Rathinadurai, for Respondent.

ORDER: The Rent Control Appellate Authority held that a second application for fixing the fair rent is maintainable and therefore, this revision.

2. The revision petitioner is the tenant. In 1983, the respondent/ the landlord filed H.R.C.O.P. No.1167 of 1982 under Sec.4 of the Act. Fair rent was fixed at Rs.221 per month. On appeal, it was quantified at Rs.211 per month. After the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a tenancy agreement. Notwithstanding the fact that the fair rent had been fixed in the above proceedings, a sum of Rs.500 per month was paid as rent and received by the respondent. In March, 1995, the respondent filed R.C.O.P. No.575 of 1995 for fixing the fair rent. The learned Rent Controller while dismissing the petition on the ground that a second application for fixation of fair rent was not maintainable, proceeded to quantify the fair rent on the basis of the materials produced before him. The fair rent thus fixed was Rs.1311 per month. The respondent preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority relying on Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 602 came to the conclusion that a fresh petition















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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