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

1998 Supreme(Mad) 1510

K.GOVINDARAJAN
A. S. Mahaboob Huss – Appellant
Versus
Jayaraman and six others – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. M.V. Krishnan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. K.N. Basha, Advocate for Respondent No.(1) N.A. (R2 & 4).

Judgment :

1. The petitioner filed a petition under section 10 (2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in M.R.C.O.P. No. 118 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller, Trichy to evict the respondents/tenants on the ground that the respondents have not paid the rent for 37 months from 2. 1978.

2. The non payment of rent is not disputed by the tenants. According to the tenants, they sought to send the rent by money order, which was refused and the tenants paid the property tax to the Municipality with respect to the property in question. In view of the above fact, the tenants case is that the non payment of the rent cannot be construed as wilful. It is also not disputed that the petitioner issued a notice dated 3. 78 to the respondents.

3. The Rent Controller in his order dated 30.10.1987 found that the tenants have defaulted the payment of rent which amounts to wilful default and on the basis of the aforesaid fact, ordered eviction. Aggrieved against the same, the tenants filed an appeal

R.C.A. No.1 of 1988. The Appellate Authority accepting the case of the tenants found that the tenants have not committed wilful default in payment of rent. Aggrieved agai





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