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

1997 Supreme(Mad) 285

A.RAMAN
Vasantha Leela – Appellant
Versus
N. Vadivelu Chettiar – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. M.N. Padmanabhan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. T.N. Rajaram, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

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















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