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

1994 Supreme(Mad) 838

C. Kailaschand Jain – Appellant
Versus
Mohamed Kasim – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. S. Ramamurthi counsel for petitioner and Mr. K. Chandramouli Senior Counsel for Mr. A. Muthukumar for the respondents.

Judgment :

Tenants who have lost in both the forums below have come forward with this civil revision petition. Present respondent instituted R.C.O.P.No.10 of 1988 in the Court of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Mayiladuthurai seeking eviction under Sections 10(2)

(ii) (b) and 10(2) (iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 on the allegations that the revision petitioners are using the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased and that they have committed acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building. It is the case of the landlord that the demised property is the ground floor measuring 10’X95’ of Door No.5, Second street, Mayiladuthurai Town. This non-residential premises was let out to the revision petitioner under Ex.P. 1 agreement dated 31-7-1978 for the purpose of running Textile shop, Jewellery shop and Medical shop for a period of 15 years from 1-7-1978 on a monthly rent ranging from Rs.1000/- to Rs.1238/- as specified therein. However, contrary to the terms of the tenancy revision petitioners are running a Pawn-broker’s shop in the premises without the knowledge and consent of the land

















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