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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 649

A.R.LAKSHMANAN
S. Thangaswamy – Appellant
Versus
R. Vinayakamurthy – Respondent


Advocates:
K.Ramachandran, for Petitioner. V.R.Gopalan. for Respondent.

Judgment :

The tenant has filed the above civil revision petition against the concurrent findings of both the authorities below, ordering eviction of the petitioner on the question of denial of title and also for demolition and reconstruction of the property in question.

2.The respondent here in filed R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1986 under Sec.14(1)(b) and under Sec.10(2)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The plea of the landlord was that the building was required for demolition and reconstruction. The petition was lacking in bona fides. The Rent Controller on consideration of law and fact ordered eviction. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant preferred R.C.A.No.6 of 1989 and the same was dismissed on 20.2.1991 granting a month’s time. Aggrieved by the orders of the Appellate Authority confirming the orders of the Rent Controller, the petitioner has preferred the above civil revision petition.

3.I have carefully gone through the entire pleadings filed by both the sides and also of the orders of the authorities below impugned in this revision.

4. The landlord is his petition filed for eviction of the tenant stated that the pe






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