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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 282

ARUNA JAGADEESAN
Central Hameedia Stores & two others – Appellant
Versus
Valliammmal @ Rajammal – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.Mohamed Yousuf Advocate, for Petitioners Mr.Peppin Fernando Advocate, for Respondent

Judgment :

1. The tenants are the petitioners. The respondent/landlady filed R.C.O.P. 11/87 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Sankarankoil to evict the petitioners herein on the ground of wilful default and for demolition and reconstruction.

2. The respondent’s case is that the monthly rent for the premises is Rs.500/- of which Rs.350/- is to be paid every month on or before 5th of succeeding month and Rs.150/-has to be paid in the consolidated basis, once in six months. The petitioners failed to pay the rent from 30th March to 30th September, accruing to Rs.900/- at the rate of Rs.150/- p.m and failed to pay the entire rent from 9. 86 to 30.87. The building is 60 years old and the respondent wants to demolish the existing superstructure a nd put up the new building in order to augment the income.

3. The petitioners opposed the application by filing counter stating that there is no arrears at all and the agreed rent is only Rs.350/- p.m. and since the respondent’s grandson was collecting the rent, had refused to receive the rent, the rents were not paid.

4. However, during the evidence the petitioners represented that the rent had been deposited in the rent








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