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

1994 Supreme(Mad) 952

GOVARDHAN
V. D. Murugesan – Appellant
Versus
V. Raj Mohammed – Respondent


Advocates:
K. Chandramouli, for Petitioner. R Balachandar, for Respondent.

Judgment :

The tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed by the Rent Controller, Mayiladuthurai in R.C.O.P.No.62 of 1983 and which was confirmed by the appellate authority of Mayiladuthurai on the ground that the tenant has sub-let the premises, has come forward with this revision.

2. The landlord has filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of wilful default under Sec.l0(2)(i), requirement of the premises for own use and occupation under Sec.10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and on the ground of subletting without his consent. As far as the ground of wilful default and requirement of the premises for own use and occupation are concerned, the petition has been dismissed by the Rent Controller and there is no appeal against the said order. On the ground of sub-letting, the petitioner in his petition has stated as follows: “The respondent is not personally residing in the premises. He appears to have permitted some third party to reside in the same. Though the respondent would claim the occupant to be a family member, the said assertion, is not correct.” The respondent in his counter as against this allega


















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