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

1994 Supreme(Mad) 242

THANGAMANI
T. Santhana Kesari – Appellant
Versus
Kathija Bai, represented by Power of Attorney Agent J. Esoof Sait – Respondent


Advocates:
Rathna Durai, for Petitioner. M. Sridhar, for Respondent.

Judgment :

The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.291 of 1991 in the Court of District Munsif of Udhagamandalam. The respondent/ plaintiff instituted the suit for ejectment in respect of O.03 cents in R.S.No.1772/4 of Ootacamund Town together with superstructure thereon stating that the revision petitioner is a tenant in occupation of the premises under a registered lease deed dated 4. 1976, that he continues as a tenant by holding over and that as per the terms of the lease deed the lessee is not entitled to remove the superstructure put up by him on determination of lease. The revision petitioner though admitted that the construction was made as per the terms of the lease, pleaded in his written statement that the lease of the suit land is governed by the provisions of Madras City Tenants Protection Act and that he has already filed O.P.No.3 of 1991 under Scc.9 of the City Tenants’ Protection Act for appropriate relief. He also contended that the Court-fee paid is not correct. The respondent/plaintiff has paid Court-fee for the relief of delivery of possession of superstructure on the piece of land which is not separately valued. Instead he is liable to pay Court-fee o




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