K.SAMPATH
J. Lease & Co. and others – Appellant
Versus
M. S. A. Mohammed Farooq – Respondent
2. The ownership of the property is not disputed. The revision petitioners claim that they are entitled to claim the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The allegations of this in the plaint are as under: Originally the first revision petitioner was the sole proprietary concern of late Rajarathinam, and the tenant of the entire property covered by Door No.199 excluding the south western small portion tenant
Syed Ibrahim v. Jalma : [1968] 2 M.L.J. 83
P. S. Balakrishnamaraja v. Alagar Raja [1974] 1 L.W. 582 : [1994] 1 M.L.J. 574
Y. Abdul Mallik v. St. Francis Xaviers Church : [1975] 2 M.L.J. 204
Hamsa Patel v. Balakrishnan : [1989] 1 M.L.J. 57
Naresh v. State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1
Badrilal v. Municipal Corporation of Indore A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 508
Hamsa Patel v. Balakrishnan [1997] 3 L.W. 769
Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Hitmatlal Jamnadas Dani A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 819
Natesan Mudaliar v. S. B. K. P. K. Bhojana Matam : [1966] 1 M.L.J. 130
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.