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

1993 Supreme(Mad) 684

THANIKKACHALAM
Rajarani Silk Palace and others – Appellant
Versus
C. K. B. Murugan – Respondent


Advocates:
J.R.K.Bhavanandam, for Petitioners. V.M.Rajavel, for Respondent.

Judgment :

The tenants are the petitioners herein.

.2. The petition for eviction was filed under Secs.l0 (2)(ii)(a) and l0(2)(iii)of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. The petition premises is situated at No.31, Nainappan Street, Mannadi, Madras-1. The petitioners herein are the tenants in respect of the petition premises on the monthly rent of Rs.1,000 payable according to English calendar month. According to the landlord, the tenants sublet the petition premises to the respondents 6 to 8 without the written consent of the landlord. Further, according to the landlord, the tenants without the permission of the landlord put up a construction in the open space on the first floor. Therefore, according to the landlord, the value and utility of the building are materially impaired. Hence, the petition was filed under Secs.l0(2)(a)(ii) and 10(2)(iii)of the Act.

4. The tenants filed the counter stating that there is no subletting to the respondents 6 to 8 as alleged by the landlord. According to the tenants, the rent is Rs.500 per mensem for both residential and non-residential portions















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