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

1998 Supreme(Mad) 1718

K.GOVINDARAJAN
Krishan and two others – Appellant
Versus
Ravindranath – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.V. Raghavachari, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.K.N. Thambi, Advocate for Respondents.

Judgment :

1. The respondent/landlord filed eviction petition against the petitioners under sections 10(2)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease &Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 on the grounds that the tenants had committed wilful default in payment of rent and that requires the premises in 1 question for demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent controller ordered eviction on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction. Aggrieved, the petitioners/tenants filed appeals before the learned Appellate Authority/sub-Judge, Nagerkoil, in R.C.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 1997. Pending the appeals, the landlord filed applications in I.A.Nos.117 and 118 of 1998 to accept the undertaking which has to be given under section 14(2)(b) of the said Act, and they had been ordered by the appellate authority. Aggrieved, the tenants have filed the above revisions.

2. To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent, with respect to the scope of the undertaking, which has to be given under section 14(2)(b) of the said Act, it is necessary to extract the said section itself, which is as follows: -

" 14. Recove
















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