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

2004 Supreme(Mad) 687

T.V.MASILAMANI
Varadhan – Appellant
Versus
Kannammal and others – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.A.Seshan, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.P.Gururamachandran, Advocate for
Respondent No.1

Judgment :

1. This revision petition is preferred by the tenant/second respondent before the Rent Controller and appellant in the Rent Control Appeal against the impugned judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.8 of 1995 dated 30.6.1998 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Ranipet, confirming the fair and decretal orders passed by the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Ranipet in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 1990 dated 8. 1995.

2. The parties to the revision petition may be referred to in the same order as they were arrayed in the Courts below for the sake of convenience.

3. The landlady/petitioner filed the Rent Control Petition under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960”) for eviction of the tenants/respondents on the grounds that after the death of the original tenant, the first respondent, there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the second respondent, son of the deceased first respondent in respect of the demised premises, that the petition premises is required as an additional accommodation for running the hotel business


























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