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

1992 Supreme(Mad) 391

THANIKKACHALAM
R. Krishnaswamy – Appellant
Versus
N. Arumugam – Respondent


Advocates:
T.R.Rajagopalan, for Petitioner. T.RMani, Senior Counsel, for J.M.Hariharan, for Respondent.

Judgment :

The tenant is the petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed under Secs.l0(3)(c) and 14(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1976, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. The landlord purchased the petition premises along with the downstair portion from one Ramasubramania Iyer on 5. 1982. The tenant is in occupation of the upstair portion and the staircase. The tenant was in the petition premises even prior to the purchase of the premises by the landlord. In the downstair portion the landlord is conducting a general merchant shop. The tenant is doing business as a newspaper agent. According to the landlord, the portion under his occupation is not sufficient for his business. Hence, he required the portion under the occupation of the tenant bona fide by way of additional accommodation under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act. According to the landlord, the petition premises required extensive repairs. Therefore, he also required the petition premises for repairs under Sec.14(a) of the Act. The tenant filed a suit for injunction against the landlord in O.S.No.523 of 1982 and obtained an order of interim injunction against







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