A.RAMAN
Vasantha Leela – Appellant
Versus
N. Vadivelu Chettiar – Respondent
1. In these two civil revision petitions the revision petitioner and the respondent are the same. The property relating to which the impugned orders were passed is the same. Therefore, these two C.R.Ps. are taken up for joint enquiry.
.2. As regards C.R.P.No. 48 of 1991, the landlord viz., the respondent herein filed an application before the Rent Controller, Vellore under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control )Act requiring the building bearing Door No. 286, Saidapet, Main Bazar, Vellore on the ground that the building is old and dilapidated and that the income derived from the building is low and therefore the landlord wants to demolish the building and reconstruct the same with a view to obtain higher income from the same.
3. The tenant filed his objections to the application contending that the requirement of the petitioner-landlord is not bonafide and that the application has been filed with a view to extract higher rent and that landlord is not possessed of sufficient means to undertake demolition and reconstruction. It was further contended by the tenant that as the landlord was harassing the tenant had to file suit in O.S.No. 683
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.