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

1998 Supreme(Mad) 1637

K.GOVINDARAJAN
T. Easwara Rao – Appellant
Versus
N. E. Ansari (decd) and six others – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.K. Raghunathan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, Advocate for Respondents.

Judgment :

.1. The deceased respondent/landlord filed the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 83 of 1987 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Ootacamund against the petitioner/tenant on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and for his occupation, and also for additional accommodation, with respect to the premises in question. That was resisted by the tenant by filing a counter. The Rent Controller in the order dated 4. 1989 ordered eviction on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and that the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation is a bona fide one. On the basis of the abovesaid findings the Rent Controller ordered eviction. Aggrieved, the tenant filed appeal in R.C.A. No. 28 of 1989 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority/District Judge, The Nilgiris at Ootacamund, who also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and confirmed the order of eviction and dismissed the appeal. Still aggrieved, the tenant has filed the above revision.

2. Admittedly, the monthly rent was Rs.20 per month. According to the landlord, the tenant did not pay the rent for the period





















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