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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 1244

S.S.SUBRAMANI
Ammal Pillai and Others – Appellant
Versus
Varadarajulu Complex a Partnership Firm represented by its Partners – Respondent


Advocates:
G. Vasudevan, for Petitioners. M. V.Krishnan, for Respondents.

Judgment :

This revision petition is filed by the tenants in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 1984, on the file of Rent Controller, Dindigul. Eviction was sought against the petitioners on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.

2.. Initially in the eviction petition, when it was filed, there was no averment therein that the building is in a bad shape, or that it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. In the petition, it was originally stated that the landlords wanted to put up a building complex after demolishing the entire structure. It is also alleged that the State Bank of India is intending to have their office in that building, and being an important locality, they wanted to demolish the entire structure and put that area to better use. Later, by amendment, necessary averments that are required under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act were incorporated, and it was further contended that the Karur Vysya Bank has offered financial assistance of Rs.15 lakhs to the landlords for putting up construction and to make use of the structure for their use. They also contended that they have got the necessary plan and licence, and they require eviction b















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