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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 463

S.M.ABDUL WAHAB
Gajendra Sha & Another – Appellant
Versus
M. Govindarajan – Respondent


Advocates:
N.Krishnamitra, for Petitioners. V.R.Gopalan, for Respondents.

Judgment :

The civil revision petition is against the order dated 112. 1989 in R.C.A.No.34 of 1988, on the file of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, reversing the order of eviction passed in R.C.O.P. No.3668 of 1985, dated 112. 1987, on the file of the IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.

2. The eviction petition wasfiled under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (own occupation). The landlord’s petition was ordered by the Rent Controller. However, the appellate authority has dismissed the same. Hence the landlord has filed the civil revision petition in this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.N. Krishnamitra urged before me that the appellate authority ought to have confirmed the order of eviction because it has been proved that the petitioners are carrying on business in a rented building, namely, No.86, Sembudoss Street, Madras-1 under the name and style of A.A. Sha Electricals, and they purchased the petition premises on 14. 1985. After the purchase they have also intimated the tenant about their purchase. Accepting the purchase, the respondent has been paying the rent. According to the


















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